1. Identify who should pay for which learning
This original lesson explores the responsibility for workplace training. The model’s opinion is a teaching example, not a statement of your beliefs. You can argue another position if you develop it consistently. No examiner score is claimed, and the prompt is not an official past paper. Task 2 requires at least 250 words; allow about 40 minutes, following official IELTS format guidance.
Original practice task
Some people believe employers should provide all training that workers need to remain effective in their jobs. Others think employees should take responsibility for developing their own skills outside working hours. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
This question concerns responsibility, time and relevance. It is not a general invitation to praise hard work or describe an ideal career. The words “all training” and “outside working hours” create strong claims that deserve scrutiny. A useful position distinguishes training required for the current role from optional development for a different career. You can share responsibility without making the vague claim that everyone should simply do their best.
Define your examples before deciding who should pay. Learning a new system introduced by the employer differs from studying an unrelated subject for personal interest. A course that benefits both the current workplace and the worker’s future career sits between those extremes. The grey area is an opportunity for reasoning rather than a reason to abandon a clear opinion.
2. Separate required competence from optional ambition
Use two categories and one boundary case. Employers should support training necessary to perform assigned duties, particularly when they change tools or procedures. Employees can take the initiative for broader development they choose themselves. Where both benefit, an agreed contribution of time or money may be reasonable.
- Employer argument: the organisation controls job requirements and can coordinate consistent instruction for its staff.
- Employee argument: workers know their longer-term ambitions and should not rely entirely on one employer to plan their development.
- Fairness issue: compulsory unpaid learning can shift the cost of an employer’s operational change onto employees.
- Position: fund and schedule essential job training at work; negotiate shared support for broader options.
An original example could involve a small firm replacing its booking software. Staff need to learn the new workflow to complete the same assigned duties. Employer-led training follows from the employer’s decision, not from a claim that workers are incapable of learning independently. Contrast this with an employee choosing an evening spreadsheet course to keep current office skills up to date. Voluntary initiative is different from compulsory training for a system the employer introduces. The contrast clarifies the principle better than repeating “training is important” in both paragraphs.
3. Avoid vague workplace claims
“Job-specific training” concerns the duties and systems of a particular role. “Transferable skills” may be useful across organisations, such as presenting information or managing a project. Transferability does not automatically mean the employee must pay: a current employer can also benefit. The relevant question is how necessary the training is for assigned work and how the benefit and burden are distributed.
Use “paid training time”, “professional development” and “agreed contribution” when you explain a real arrangement. Avoid claiming that training guarantees promotion, loyalty or profit. A stronger, narrower statement is that coordinated instruction can help staff understand a shared process. You can then illustrate how inconsistent use of a new booking system might cause avoidable confusion, without inventing a productivity percentage.
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 work-topic essay
Read the original model response
Keeping skills relevant is a responsibility shared by employers and employees, but that does not mean every course should be treated alike. I believe employers should provide training essential to an employee’s current duties, while workers should take greater responsibility for development they choose for broader career goals.
There is a strong reason for employer-led instruction when an organisation changes how a job must be done. The employer selects the tools and procedures, so it should ensure that staff have a reasonable opportunity to learn them. For example, if a fictional business replaces its booking software, all relevant employees need to understand the new workflow. Coordinated training during paid hours can establish a common approach and allow questions to be resolved. Expecting staff to learn an imposed system entirely in their own time would shift part of the cost of that business decision onto them.
Employees nevertheless have a legitimate role in directing their development. They may notice gaps in their own skills before an employer designs a course, and choosing a short evening class can let them work at a suitable pace. For instance, an administrator might independently improve spreadsheet skills that are useful across several workplaces. Supporters of personal responsibility argue that workers also benefit from maintaining their employability and should not wait for managers to identify every learning need. This supports voluntary initiative, although it does not justify making essential training for an imposed workplace system unpaid.
Between these cases, a shared arrangement may be appropriate. A project-management course, for instance, could support both current responsibilities and future opportunities. Employer and employee could agree in advance how much working time or financial support is available. Clear criteria would be fairer than leaving workers uncertain about whether they are expected to study unpaid.
In conclusion, employers should carry the main responsibility for essential job training, while employees should guide their wider ambitions. Distinguishing these purposes offers a more workable approach than assigning all learning to either the workplace or personal time.
The essay answers both strong claims by establishing a boundary. Its conclusion does not simply repeat that responsibility is shared; it states how it is divided. The fictional examples explain the boundary without claiming to represent every profession or a particular labour law.
5. Strengthen two workplace arguments
Exercise A: remove a false guarantee
Revise: “If companies pay for training, all workers will be loyal forever and profits will double.” Keep a relevant benefit that you can explain without unsupported figures.
Check a worked solution
A more defensible sentence is: “Providing coordinated training can help employees understand new procedures and give them a clear opportunity to ask questions.” This describes a direct function of the training. Loyalty and profit depend on many factors; neither follows automatically from paying for a course. You can mention retention as a possible consideration, but not as a guaranteed result.
Exercise B: resolve the responsibility boundary
A draft says: “Employees should study outside work because skills belong to them.” Improve the reasoning by distinguishing optional development from learning a newly required workplace system.
Check a worked solution
One revision is: “Employees can reasonably take the lead on optional study for a different career, but an employer that introduces a new system should provide time and support to learn it.” The fact that a skill remains with the employee does not settle who created the training need. The revised principle considers both choice and immediate job requirements.
6. Check that “shared” has a practical meaning
Highlight each training example and label it essential, optional or shared-benefit. If you cannot place it, explain the uncertainty rather than switching principles mid-essay. A strong response can recognise that a course has several uses while still saying how a fair decision should be made.
In a second attempt, argue that employers should provide a small general development allowance in addition to essential training. You would need to explain why that additional commitment is worthwhile and acknowledge that smaller organisations may face tighter limits. Keep this as an argument about policy choices, not a statement of employment rights. The original task provides no jurisdiction or legal framework.
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.