1. Define the environmental policy choice
This lesson develops a focused argument about reducing disposable food packaging. The prompt and response are original teaching examples, not an official IELTS past paper. The model takes one defensible position for illustration; that position is not presented as your belief, and you can practise a different view. No examiner band score is claimed. Task 2 requires at least 250 words; allow about 40 minutes, following official IELTS format guidance.
Original practice task
Some people believe that shops should be required to charge customers for disposable food containers. Others argue that improving access to reusable alternatives is a better way to reduce waste. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
This task asks you to compare two approaches to one waste problem. It is not a request for a general essay on climate change, deforestation or renewable energy. A container charge changes the immediate price of a disposable choice. Reusable access changes what customers can conveniently choose instead. Your argument should explain the behaviour each approach is intended to influence and the circumstances that could limit its usefulness.
2. Trace incentives, access and implementation
A productive plan gives each policy a mechanism, an example and a limitation. A charge can make a previously invisible packaging cost noticeable at the point of purchase. However, a customer without a suitable alternative may simply pay it. A reusable system can offer an alternative, but only if borrowing, returning and cleaning containers is manageable.
- Charge argument: attaching a visible cost encourages customers to reconsider a disposable item they do not need.
- Access argument: affordable reusable options make a different choice possible for people who arrive without their own container.
- Practical barrier: a complicated return system may discourage use, even where people support reducing waste.
- Position: introduce convenient alternatives first, then use a modest charge to reinforce the change.
Keep the claimed outcome proportional. You can reasonably argue that the proposal could reduce unnecessary single-use containers; you cannot conclude from the prompt that it will eliminate all packaging waste. Separate intended benefits from proven results. Since this original question supplies no lifecycle evidence, do not announce that any reusable container is automatically environmentally superior after a particular number of uses. That calculation depends on materials, transport, cleaning and actual reuse.
3. Use concrete environmental terms
“Disposable” describes an item intended to be discarded after use, whereas “reusable” describes an item designed for repeated use. Neither term alone tells you how the object is managed in practice. A reusable cup left unused in a cupboard does not achieve repeated use. A useful essay links the product to a workable system.
Prefer “reduce unnecessary packaging” to “save the planet”, and “make the cost visible” to “force everyone to become responsible”. These precise phrases give you something to explain. For a hypothetical system, terms such as “return point”, “refundable deposit” and “washing arrangements” help identify practical conditions. Mentioning those conditions is not wandering from the topic: it explains why access means more than putting a container on sale.
Try your own response
Your writing stays in this page only. It is not submitted or saved. Copy your draft before leaving. The word counter checks approximate length, not quality.
4. Read the original environmental essay
Read the original model response
Reducing waste from takeaway food requires more than asking customers to care about the environment. Charges for disposable containers can influence choices, while accessible reusable options make different choices possible. In my view, shops should prioritise practical alternatives and then use a modest charge to discourage unnecessary disposables.
A charge has the advantage of making packaging visible as a separate cost. When a container appears to be free, a customer has little immediate reason to refuse it. A clearly stated fee could encourage someone buying a snack to use a suitable container already in their bag. It could also prompt shops to ask whether packaging is needed rather than provide it automatically. However, this incentive has limits. If a customer has no alternative, the fee becomes an extra expense without necessarily changing the amount of waste created.
Improving access addresses that weakness. For example, a fictional group of neighbouring cafés could offer containers that customers borrow with a refundable deposit and return to any participating shop. The ability to return a container near work rather than to the original café could make participation more convenient. Such a scheme would still require clear washing arrangements and enough return points. Simply selling expensive reusable products would not meet the needs of every customer or ensure that those products are repeatedly used.
For these reasons, the two measures should be introduced in a sensible order. Shops should first establish an affordable, straightforward alternative and explain how it works. A small charge can then reinforce the choice, with arrangements for situations where a disposable item is genuinely needed. The aim should be to reduce avoidable waste rather than punish customers for circumstances they cannot easily change.
Overall, charging has a useful supporting role, but convenient access is the stronger foundation. Combining them carefully is more convincing than assuming either a price signal or a reusable product will solve the problem alone.
The model’s policy sequence is an actual opinion, not a vague statement that both sides matter. It explains why access comes first and what a charge adds afterwards. The café network is explicitly fictional; it illustrates a possible mechanism without pretending to report a real programme’s results.
5. Repair two environmental arguments
Exercise A: remove a guaranteed outcome
Revise: “If shops charge for boxes, plastic pollution will disappear immediately.” Retain a plausible benefit and add a condition that matters to the proposal.
Check a worked solution
A careful version is: “A container charge could reduce some unnecessary disposable packaging, especially where customers have a convenient reusable alternative.” “Could” signals an expected rather than guaranteed effect. “Some” matches the limited policy scope. The condition explains why the presence of alternatives changes how customers may respond.
Exercise B: turn a slogan into a mechanism
Develop: “Reusable containers are good for the environment and therefore the government must promote them.” Add practical detail without inventing a scientific statistic.
Check a worked solution
One revision is: “Authorities could support shared return points so that borrowed containers are easier to reuse. Any scheme should also consider cleaning and transport arrangements, because a reusable label alone does not establish its overall impact.” The revision identifies an action, explains its purpose and acknowledges an evidence limit. It stays within the packaging question instead of relying on a broad slogan.
6. Check the scope of every claim
Circle words such as “all”, “always”, “completely” and “guarantee”. Ask whether your evidence really supports them. Environmental topics invite ambitious conclusions, but a short argument is stronger when it recognises the boundaries of one intervention. Do not attribute a precise emissions reduction to the proposed policy unless the task provides defensible evidence for it.
For a second version, take the position that the charge should come first to encourage shops to develop alternatives. You would then need to answer the fairness objection directly and explain how customers with fewer options would be treated. This alternative can be argued without changing the prompt. What matters is that your reasons support your stated sequence rather than merely repeat that waste is undesirable.
Format reference checked on 15 October 2026: official IELTS Academic Writing guidance. All prompts, models, data and exercises here are original teaching material. This independent page is not an official past paper or an examiner-marked answer.