1. Separate convenience from exclusion
This lesson develops a focused argument about whether public services should become digital-only. 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 think local public services should be available only online because digital systems are more efficient. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The decisive word is “only”. You do not have to oppose online services to reject the removal of every alternative. A clear response can support digital access as the main route while maintaining limited telephone or in-person help. This distinction gives the essay a precise position and avoids a generic debate about whether technology is good or bad.
“Public services” could include booking a local facility, requesting a permit or reporting a street problem. Choose one or two examples that fit local administration. Do not drift into social media, entertainment or shopping simply because those also use digital technology. Your examples must illuminate the consequences of an online-only service policy.
2. Build the qualification into the thesis
Begin with a qualified disagreement: digital systems can handle routine requests efficiently, but essential services should retain a meaningful alternative. Then explain both halves. An efficiency paragraph can discuss submitting a request without travelling to an office and using structured fields to collect the needed information. An access paragraph can explain what happens when a person lacks a suitable device, has difficulty using the interface or faces a problem the form does not cover.
- Concession: online self-service can reduce repeated visits and let people submit routine information at a convenient time.
- Central objection: a service being technically online does not mean every resident can use it successfully.
- Illustration: a fictional booking form rejects an unusual address, leaving a resident unable to proceed without human help.
- Policy judgement: retain accessible assistance for complex or excluded cases while making digital routes easy for those who prefer them.
Avoid assuming that one human channel solves every accessibility problem. A telephone alternative may be unsuitable for some users, while an office appointment may be hard to reach. Your essay can acknowledge this without designing an entire public-service system. The relevant principle is that the alternative should be usable, not merely nominal.
3. Make technology language specific
“Digital access” concerns the ability to reach and use a service, while “digital skills” concern the knowledge needed to operate it. Someone may have skills but no reliable connection, or a connection but trouble understanding a poorly designed form. Keeping these barriers distinct improves the logic of your example.
Use “routine request”, “assisted access” and “complex case” when they explain how the system works. Avoid the unsupported claim that computers make no mistakes. Digital systems can consistently apply a mistaken rule or reject a valid input. A more defensible point is that structured forms can reduce certain omissions, provided they are designed well and there is a way to correct errors.
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 a qualified-disagreement model
Read the original model response
Local authorities increasingly have the option of providing services through digital systems. These can make routine transactions more convenient, but I disagree that public services should be available only online. Efficiency should improve access rather than make it conditional on a resident’s ability to use one channel.
The case for extensive online provision is persuasive. A resident can submit a routine request at a suitable time without travelling to an office, and a well-designed form can identify missing information before submission. For example, someone reserving a community room could see available times and receive confirmation through the same system. Staff could then spend less time answering repeated questions about availability. These benefits justify making digital routes straightforward and widely available.
They do not, however, justify removing every alternative. Some residents may lack a reliable connection or need help understanding the process. Others may be confident technology users whose circumstances do not fit the form. Consider a fictional resident whose address is absent from a booking system’s approved list. Repeatedly directing that person back to the same page would not resolve the problem. A short conversation with a staff member could clarify the situation and allow the request to proceed. The problem is not opposition to technology but the absence of a workable exception.
A more balanced approach would use online self-service for common tasks while retaining accessible human assistance. This need not mean maintaining identical staffing at every counter. Authorities could organise appointments or support sessions according to local demand, provided residents can obtain meaningful help without unreasonable barriers. Feedback from these cases could also reveal where the digital service needs improvement.
In conclusion, online systems deserve a central role because they can simplify many interactions. Nevertheless, an online-only policy places too much weight on one route. Public services should remain usable by residents whose needs or circumstances require another way to complete the task.
The first body paragraph genuinely supports digital provision; it is not a token concession. The second then addresses the stronger claim that provision should be exclusive. The final body paragraph offers a bounded alternative without promising that additional channels have no cost.
5. Solve two technology-essay revisions
Exercise A: recover the exact question
A draft thesis says: “I disagree because technology has changed society and people use phones too much.” Rewrite it so the disagreement addresses public services being available only online.
Check a worked solution
A focused thesis is: “Although online systems can simplify routine requests, I disagree with removing other routes because some residents need assistance or cannot complete their case through a standard form.” This identifies both the benefit being accepted and the exclusivity being rejected. Phone overuse is not relevant unless you can connect it directly to the policy under discussion.
Exercise B: replace a stereotype with a barrier
Revise: “Old people cannot understand computers, so every service must stay exactly as it is.” Keep an access concern without stereotyping a whole group or rejecting improvement.
Check a worked solution
A better version is: “Residents who lack the equipment, skills or accessible interface needed for an online service should have a usable alternative.” The sentence identifies specific barriers rather than assigning inability to an age group. It also allows the service to improve digitally while preserving assistance for those who need it.
6. Audit the word “only”
Read your introduction and conclusion together. They should agree about the online-only proposal, not merely say that technology has advantages and disadvantages. Then check each body paragraph: does it explain why a digital route is useful, why exclusivity is problematic, or how an alternative would address that problem? A paragraph about the history of computers is unlikely to meet that test.
For further practice, argue for an online-first system with support delivered through local libraries. Explain which requests could reasonably use that arrangement and where it might fail. This is a narrower proposal than digital-only access. Naming the distinction helps prevent your essay from defending a position different from the one you announced.
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.