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. Distinguish the cause from the consequence
Original practice task
Why does household food go unused?
In some communities, households regularly throw away food that they bought but did not use.
What are the main reasons for this, and what could households and food retailers do to reduce the problem? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples. Write at least 250 words.
This is a causes-and-solutions version of a problem essay. It specifically asks for reasons and for actions by two groups: households and food retailers. An essay devoted to the environmental consequences of wasted food would address a related topic but leave the requested causes underdeveloped. Likewise, a plan made entirely of government laws would overlook the named actors.
Keep four categories separate in your notes. The problem is purchased food going unused. A cause might be buying more than a household can reasonably consume. A consequence might be unnecessary household spending. A solution might be checking supplies before shopping. These ideas are connected, but they answer different questions. You need a clear cause–action chain rather than a collection of statements about food.
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. Build two cause–action chains
Start with plausible everyday mechanisms rather than broad blame. “People are careless” is difficult to explain and offers little guidance. “People buy a large pack because the unit price looks attractive, even when they need only a small quantity” gives you a specific behaviour to address.
- Cause one: households shop without checking existing supplies or allowing for changing plans. Food is duplicated or forgotten.
- Household action: check the fridge before shopping, plan flexible meals and keep older ingredients visible. Explain how this reduces duplicate purchases and neglected food.
- Cause two: large packs and quantity-based promotions encourage buying more than a small household needs.
- Retail action: offer smaller quantities at reasonable prices and make single-item prices clear. Explain how a customer can then choose an appropriate amount.
- Limits: plans change and some waste remains. Judge the measures by whether they reduce avoidable excess, not whether they guarantee perfection.
For each solution, answer three questions: Who can do it? What exactly changes? Which cause does it address? “Raise awareness” answers none of these on its own. A retailer placing a clear price comparison beside two pack sizes is more concrete because it helps a particular purchasing decision.
The model uses two cause paragraphs followed by an action paragraph and a short conclusion. Another workable structure pairs each cause directly with its solution. Choose the arrangement that keeps the links easy to follow. There is no need to propose a complex national programme when the question asks what households and shops could do.
Before drafting, check feasibility. A family may not follow a rigid weekly menu perfectly, so flexible meals are a more realistic suggestion. A shop still needs to cover packaging and handling costs, so “give everyone free food” would require a different argument. Practical limits make your proposals more credible, not weaker.
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
Food bought for the home is sometimes discarded before it is used. This can happen because households purchase more than they need and because retail offers encourage quantities that do not suit them. I believe better planning by shoppers, combined with more flexible choices in shops, could reduce much of this avoidable waste.
One reason is the gap between shopping decisions and actual routines. A person may buy ingredients for several planned meals without checking what is already in the fridge. If work finishes late or a family member eats elsewhere, some of those ingredients may then be overlooked. The difficulty is not simply a lack of concern about waste. It can also be a failure to account for changing plans and to keep track of food that has already been purchased.
Retail choices can reinforce this problem. A large pack may appear attractive because each item costs less, even when a small household is unlikely to use the full quantity. Promotions linked to buying several items can create a similar incentive. For example, someone who needs a small amount of fresh produce may buy extra to obtain an advertised saving. If that extra food is discarded, the lower price has not necessarily produced better value for the customer.
Households could respond by checking existing supplies before shopping and planning a few flexible meals around ingredients they already have. Keeping older items visible would also make them less likely to be forgotten. Retailers, meanwhile, could offer smaller pack sizes at reasonable prices and make price comparisons clear, so customers are not pushed towards unsuitable quantities. These changes address different stages of the same process: shoppers decide what they need, while shops shape the options available to them. Neither side can prevent every unexpected change of plan, but both can reduce avoidable overbuying.
In conclusion, unused household food often results from imperfect planning and purchasing incentives that encourage excess. Practical changes by households and retailers are therefore more useful than simply telling people to care more. The aim should be to make buying and using an appropriate quantity easier.
Follow the causal links in the model
- The introduction identifies two causes. It also previews the two named actors instead of assigning all responsibility to an unspecified authority.
- The first body paragraph explains a process. Unchecked supplies and changing routines lead to ingredients being overlooked. This is more useful than a moral judgment about shoppers.
- The second cause has a concrete example. The attraction of a lower unit price explains why someone might buy more than needed.
- The actions match those causes. Checking supplies addresses duplication; smaller packs address inappropriate quantities; visible older items address forgetting.
- The limitation is proportionate. Unexpected changes cannot always be prevented. The goal is reduced avoidable waste, so the conclusion does not claim that the measures will eliminate it.
Notice that the model uses “can”, “could” and “may” when describing possible behaviour. It does not present fictional research or make a numerical claim about how much waste these measures would prevent. The hypothetical shopping example is enough to demonstrate the reasoning.
4. Turn a slogan into a usable solution
Exercise A: supply the missing mechanism
Revise this proposal: “Retailers should solve food waste by using technology and educating people.” Choose one realistic action and explain which cause it addresses. You do not need to mention technology at all.
Compare a specific proposal
“Retailers could sell suitable fresh produce in smaller quantities and display clear prices for each option. This would help smaller households choose the amount they expect to use instead of buying an oversized pack merely because it appears cheaper.”
The revision names an actor, an action and a causal link. It does not guarantee that every customer will change behaviour, but it shows how the purchase environment could improve.
Exercise B: classify before you organise
Decide whether each statement is a cause, a consequence or an action: “Unwanted purchases increase household spending”; “Shoppers do not check supplies before buying”; “Keep a short list of food that needs using.” Then put the relevant cause and action together in one sentence.
Check the classification and link
In order, the statements describe a consequence, a cause and an action. A linked sentence could be: “Because shoppers may forget what they already have, keeping a short list of ingredients that need using can help them avoid duplicate purchases.”
The sentence explains the action’s purpose. The spending consequence could support the importance of the problem, but it should not replace the requested explanation of why food goes unused.
For an extra test, remove every sentence beginning with “the government should” from your own plan. Is there still a complete answer about households and retailers? If not, return to the prompt and give each named actor a meaningful role.
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.