1. Work out exactly what the question asks
For IELTS Academic Writing Task 2, write at least 250 words and allow about 40 minutes. Task 2 contributes twice as much as Task 1 to the Writing result. See the official IELTS Writing format for the full requirements.
Original practice task
Where should a council spend extra money?
Some people believe that local councils should use additional funding to improve public parks. Others think this money should be spent on public transport.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion. Support your ideas with reasons and relevant examples. Write at least 250 words.
The key choice is how to use additional funding. You are not being asked whether all parks should close, or whether every journey should be made by bus. Keep the scale of your argument close to the question.
This counts up. Try a 40-minute session: roughly 5 minutes to plan, 30 to write and 5 to review. Adjust this practice split to your needs.
2. Build a plan that can become an argument
The prompt has three jobs: explain the case for parks, explain the case for transport, and establish your own position. Discussing both views does not require pretending you agree with them equally.
The case for parks
Free outdoor space can support exercise and social contact. A specific example could show how shaded paths help people who cannot easily use other facilities.
The case for transport
Dependable services can connect residents to work, study and essential appointments. Explain why improving a regular route may solve several daily problems.
- Choose your position. Write one sentence stating which investment you prioritise and under what conditions. You may choose either view or a qualified balance.
- Select one central reason for each side. Avoid collecting five benefits that you cannot explain within the time available.
- Add a mechanism. Ask “How does this help?” A park is useful because residents can use it without paying and without needing private outdoor space.
- Choose a plausible example. A clearly described everyday situation is enough. You do not need invented surveys or precise statistics.
- Check the comparison. Explain why your preferred use of extra money matters more in the situation you describe.
See one possible paragraph plan
- Introduction: both options matter; prioritise transport where services are poor while maintaining existing parks.
- Parks: accessible outdoor space serves several age groups; illustrate with paths and seating.
- Transport: reliable routes support multiple essential journeys; connect this to the funding priority.
- Qualification: distinguish routine maintenance from extra investment, and allow for local differences.
- Conclusion: restate the priority and its condition without introducing a fresh argument.
This is one workable organisation, not a required paragraph count. Your own structure should follow your reasoning.
Write your own answer
Your writing 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; it does not assess quality.
3. Study how the sample develops its position
Write your own essay before opening the example. This original response is a teaching model, not an examiner-assessed script. It is not assigned a band score.
Read the complete sample essay
Local councils often face a choice between improving green spaces and making public transport more reliable. Both investments can benefit a wide range of residents. However, I believe extra funding should normally go to transport when existing services are poor, while councils should still maintain the parks they already have.
There are good reasons to invest in public parks. They provide places where people can exercise, meet friends and spend time outdoors without paying an entrance fee. This is particularly valuable in neighbourhoods where families have little private outdoor space. For example, adding shaded paths and seating can make a small park useful to older residents as well as children. A well-designed improvement can therefore serve several groups rather than a single organised activity. Supporters of parks are right to emphasise these everyday benefits.
Nevertheless, unreliable transport can limit access to much more than recreation. A resident who cannot depend on a bus may struggle to arrive at work on time, attend a course or reach a medical appointment. Improving a busy route could help the same person make several essential journeys each week. For a council with limited additional money, this wider effect makes transport a stronger priority. The aim should be a practical improvement, such as more dependable service on an existing route, rather than an expensive project with little local demand.
This does not mean that parks should be neglected. Basic maintenance, including safe paths and functioning facilities, remains necessary. The distinction is between protecting an existing public space and spending extra money on a major upgrade. Councils should also examine local needs: an area with good buses but almost no usable green space may reasonably make a different decision.
In conclusion, parks contribute to healthy and enjoyable communities, but transport usually deserves additional funding where poor services obstruct daily life. Maintaining green spaces while directing new investment towards the most serious transport gaps offers a sensible balance.
Trace the argument instead of copying phrases
- A qualified position appears early. The introduction chooses transport when current services are poor. The condition makes the claim precise.
- The alternative view gets a fair explanation. The park paragraph links free access to a particular need and then gives a concrete improvement.
- The preferred view is developed. The transport paragraph moves from unreliable buses to missed essential journeys, then explains why that matters for a council’s choice.
- The qualification is consistent. Maintaining existing parks does not contradict a preference for directing extra funds to transport.
- The conclusion follows the essay. It repeats the established judgment without adding a new topic such as tourism or national taxation.
4. Practise two useful revisions
Activity A: develop a thin point
Start with: “Public transport is very important. It is useful for everyone. Councils should spend money on it.”
Rewrite these sentences so they identify a group of people, a specific problem and a consequence. Keep your revision focused on the funding decision.
Compare one possible revision
“For residents who rely on buses, an unreliable route can make it difficult to reach work or training on time. Spending additional money on a dependable service could therefore improve access to opportunities that people need throughout the week.”
The revision replaces an unsupported universal claim with a defined group and a clear explanation. Other relevant examples are possible.
Activity B: make a conclusion match the position
Imagine an essay that supports extra funding for transport while keeping parks maintained. Its conclusion says: “To conclude, both options are exactly equally important, so the council must always divide its money equally.”
What changed? Rewrite the conclusion so that it reflects the argument actually developed.
Check the consistency problem
The ending introduces an absolute equal-split policy that the essay has not defended. A consistent ending would retain the transport priority and acknowledge the need for park maintenance. It would not claim that the same split suits every council.
5. Review your own response
Choose one paragraph for a second draft. First improve its reasoning. Then check the language. Adding more linking words will not repair a missing explanation.
Format verified on 15 October 2026 using IELTS Academic Writing format. The prompt, sample essay, plan and revision activities are original. Practice timing splits and paragraph suggestions are teaching choices, not mandatory test rules. Drafts and checklist selections are not saved by this site.