For Academic Writing Task 2, write at least 250 words in about 40 minutes. See the official IELTS Academic Writing format. This guide’s planning method is a teaching choice, not a required test structure.
1. Read the whole claim before choosing a side
Original practice task
Should museums offer free permanent exhibitions?
Publicly funded museums should offer free entry to their permanent exhibitions, even if this means displaying fewer temporary exhibitions.
To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples. Write at least 250 words.
This question contains a policy and a trade-off. It is about publicly funded museums, not every private gallery. It concerns permanent exhibitions, not every event inside a museum. Finally, it asks whether wider free access is worth potentially losing some temporary displays. A response about the general importance of art would leave that choice unanswered.
You can agree, disagree or take a qualified position. What matters for this practice is making the extent clear and defending it. A qualified answer might support free permanent collections while allowing charges for special exhibitions. That is a meaningful distinction because it addresses who pays for which service. Saying only that there are good and bad sides would postpone the judgment the question asks you to make.
This counts up. For a 40-minute practice, try 5 minutes planning, 30 writing and 5 reviewing. Adjust that practice split to suit your needs.
2. Turn your opinion into a workable plan
Before writing the introduction, complete this sentence: “I mostly agree because ___, although ___.” Treat it as a planning test rather than a phrase you must memorise. If the two halves contradict each other, refine the policy or the condition before you begin.
- Define the extent: broadly support free permanent collections, provided essential care of the collection is funded.
- Develop access: a ticket price can discourage a family from making a short or repeated visit. Removing that price can make the museum a more usable public learning space.
- Develop the trade-off: existing collections can support several visits when interpretation changes. Explain why access to these objects can matter more than constant novelty.
- Address the strongest objection: temporary exhibitions attract interest and ticket income. Allow reasonable charging for them rather than pretending they have no value.
- Conclude consistently: favour free permanent entry while protecting collection care. Do not suddenly demand free access to every museum service.
Notice that the plan selects two connected reasons. It does not list education, tourism, culture, employment and happiness without developing any of them. For each body paragraph, use a chain: claim, explanation, illustrative situation, and link back to the policy. Your example should show the explanation working, rather than adding an unrelated story.
A short concession earns its place only when you respond to it. “Temporary exhibitions can be expensive” is an objection. “They may therefore carry a separate charge” is the response. Together they clarify your position. They do not require a separate paragraph of equal length or an artificial balance between agreement and disagreement.
Write your own essay before opening the model
Your draft stays on this page. It is not submitted or saved by this site. Copy it elsewhere before leaving or reloading. The word count is approximate and does not assess quality.
3. Study the complete original model
This response illustrates one defensible approach. It is original teaching material, not an examiner-assessed script, and has no assigned band score. Compare its decisions with your own rather than memorising the wording.
Read the complete model essay
Museums supported by public money have to balance broad access with the cost of providing interesting exhibitions. I largely agree that their permanent collections should be free to enter, even if fewer temporary displays can be offered. However, this policy should not come at the expense of looking after the objects themselves.
The strongest reason for free entry is that a public collection can then become an ordinary learning resource rather than an occasional paid attraction. A family may hesitate to buy several tickets when its children are likely to concentrate for only a short time. Without an entrance charge, the same family could return for brief visits and explore a different section each time. This would make the collection more useful to people who cannot afford frequent leisure spending. It would also allow visitors to leave and return without feeling that they had wasted their money.
Moreover, a museum does not need a constant stream of new objects to offer something worth revisiting. Staff can draw attention to different themes within the permanent collection, or explain how a familiar object connects with another period. For example, an existing display of household tools could support separate activities about design, work and local history. Although these activities still require staff time, they show why a smaller number of temporary exhibitions need not make a museum unchanging or uninteresting.
There is nevertheless a reasonable argument for retaining special exhibitions. They can introduce visitors to objects that the museum does not normally hold, and the income they generate may support other work. I would therefore allow museums to charge separately for such events. Essential conservation and safe facilities should also receive secure funding before free entry is expanded. Access is of limited value if the collection gradually deteriorates.
In conclusion, I favour free admission to permanent public collections because it encourages flexible, repeated access. Fewer temporary exhibitions are an acceptable trade-off, provided that museums can still maintain their collections and offer some separately funded special events.
How the position stays stable
- “I largely agree” answers extent. The next sentence supplies the limit: conservation must remain funded. The reader knows the position before the examples begin.
- The family example develops access. It explains why a short visit changes the value of a ticket. It does not invent a survey or claim that all families behave identically.
- The third paragraph addresses the trade-off. Reinterpreting existing objects shows how fewer temporary displays could still leave a worthwhile visitor experience.
- The concession is answered. Charging separately for special events preserves their value without abandoning free permanent entry.
- The conclusion keeps the same boundaries. It repeats support for permanent collections and the funding condition rather than enlarging the policy.
4. Repair a concession that weakens the position
Exercise A: find the contradiction
An introduction says: “I strongly agree that permanent collections should be free, although I believe every visitor should buy a ticket before entering any exhibition.” Identify the clash, then rewrite the sentence with one coherent policy.
See a possible repair
“I largely agree that permanent collections should be free, although museums should be able to charge for temporary exhibitions.”
The original demands free entry and paid entry to the same collection. The revision distinguishes two types of exhibition. Alternatively, you could disagree with free permanent entry and defend a reduced-price or subsidised ticket policy; the important point is consistency.
Exercise B: develop a claim without exaggerating
Improve this point: “Free museums make everyone intelligent. Therefore, all museums should immediately become free.” Replace the universal result with a plausible mechanism, and keep the scope of the original question.
Compare a developed answer
“Free entry to publicly funded permanent collections could make short repeat visits easier for residents with limited leisure budgets. Those visits would give people more opportunities to explore objects and explanations at their own pace.”
This version explains an opportunity rather than promising a guaranteed change in intelligence. It also stays with publicly funded permanent collections instead of extending the policy to all museums.
For a second attempt, reverse the position. Draft a two-sentence case for affordable admission charges and specify an exemption for people who cannot pay. Comparing two defensible positions helps you see that the strength of an essay comes from its reasoning, not from finding the teacher’s preferred opinion.
5. Check the response you actually wrote
Choose one unchecked item and make a specific revision. Read the changed paragraph again in context; improving a single sentence should not introduce a new position or break the link to the question.
Format checked on 15 October 2026 against the official IELTS Academic Writing format. The fictional practice prompt, model and exercises are original. Drafts and checklist selections are not saved by this site.