ACADEMIC WRITING SAMPLE ANSWERS

Academic Writing Sample Answers Practice 5 Test 01

This original practice page includes Task 1 (Static Table) and Task 2 (Discuss Both Views and Give Your Opinion), with Band 9, Band 8, and Band 7 sample answers for IELTS preparation.
Academic Writing Task 1

Task 1 · Static Table

Task 1 Prompt

You should spend about 20 minutes on this task. Write at least 150 words.

The table below compares eight economic regions in terms of their incoming and outgoing knowledge and technology transfer activity in 2023. The figures are given as index scores from 0 to 100.

Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.

Academic Writing Task 1 Static Table practice image
BAND 9

Part 1 · Band 9 Sample Answer

The table compares the intensity of incoming and outgoing knowledge and technology transfer across eight economic regions in 2023, using index scores on a scale from 0 to 100.

Overall, North America recorded the highest level of activity in both directions, while Southern Africa had the lowest scores. The two measures were broadly correlated: regions with stronger incoming activity also tended to transfer more knowledge and technology outwards. However, outgoing activity exceeded incoming activity only in the three leading regions, whereas the reverse was true everywhere else.

Among the highest-performing regions, North America scored 88 for incoming transfers and 94 for outgoing ones. The European Union followed closely on the incoming measure, at 86, but its outgoing score of 89 was slightly below East Asia’s 91. East Asia therefore ranked third for incoming activity, with 82, but second for outgoing transfers. Southeast Asia occupied a clear middle position, registering 70 and 62 respectively, although its outgoing score was 29 points below East Asia’s.

The remaining four regions all achieved incoming scores below 60. The Gulf States led this group with 58, followed by South Asia at 52, South America at 43 and Southern Africa at 35. Their outgoing figures declined in the same order, from 42 to 38, 30 and finally 22. The Gulf States showed the largest imbalance, with incoming activity surpassing outgoing activity by 16 points, compared with gaps of 13 or 14 points in the other three regions.

BAND 8

Part 1 · Band 8 Sample Answer

The table shows the index scores for incoming and outgoing knowledge and technology transfer activity in eight economic regions in 2023.

Overall, North America was the most active region for both types of transfer, whereas Southern Africa had the lowest figures. In general, regions with high incoming scores also performed strongly in outgoing transfers. Another clear feature is that the top three regions had higher outgoing than incoming scores, while the other five showed the opposite pattern.

North America achieved scores of 88 for incoming activity and 94 for outgoing activity. The European Union was close behind, with 86 and 89 respectively. East Asia had a slightly lower incoming score of 82, but its outgoing figure reached 91, placing it ahead of the European Union on this measure. There was then a noticeable fall to Southeast Asia, whose scores were 70 for incoming transfers and 62 for outgoing ones.

The four lower-ranked regions all received incoming scores of less than 60. The Gulf States recorded 58 for incoming activity, compared with only 42 for outgoing transfers, which was the widest difference in the table. South Asia followed with scores of 52 and 38. The figures were lower still in South America, at 43 and 30, while Southern Africa came last with 35 for incoming activity and just 22 for outgoing activity. Thus, the ranking of these four regions was the same for both measures.

BAND 7

Part 1 · Band 7 Sample Answer

The table compares incoming and outgoing knowledge and technology transfer activity in eight regions during 2023. The information is presented as index scores between 0 and 100.

Overall, North America had the highest scores for both incoming and outgoing transfers, while Southern Africa had the lowest. The three strongest regions recorded more outgoing than incoming activity. By contrast, incoming activity was higher in each of the other five regions.

North America ranked first, with an incoming score of 88 and an outgoing score of 94. The European Union had a similar incoming figure of 86, together with 89 for outgoing transfers. East Asia scored 82 for incoming activity and 91 for outgoing activity. Although its incoming score was lower than that of the European Union, its outgoing score was two points higher. Southeast Asia was some distance behind these regions, at 70 and 62 respectively.

Among the remaining regions, the Gulf States had the highest incoming score, at 58, but its outgoing figure was only 42. South Asia recorded 52 for incoming transfers and 38 for outgoing ones. The corresponding scores for South America were 43 and 30. Finally, Southern Africa had the lowest levels of transfer activity, with figures of 35 for incoming and 22 for outgoing transfers. The gap between the two measures was greatest in the Gulf States, at 16 points.

Academic Writing Task 2

Task 2 · Discuss Both Views and Give Your Opinion

Task 2 Prompt

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. Write at least 250 words.

Write about the following topic:

Solar geoengineering refers to large-scale technologies designed to reflect some sunlight and reduce global temperatures. Some people believe that these technologies should be developed as a way of addressing climate change. Others argue that they are too dangerous because they may have unexpected environmental and political consequences.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

BAND 9

Part 2 · Band 9 Sample Answer

Solar geoengineering has moved from the realm of speculation into serious climate-policy debate. Its supporters regard the reflection of a small proportion of sunlight as a potentially vital response to accelerating warming, while critics fear that intervening in such a complex system could create problems that cross both ecological and national boundaries. In my view, carefully governed research is warranted, but large-scale deployment should remain a last resort rather than a substitute for reducing emissions.

The strongest argument for developing these technologies is their potential speed. Replacing fossil-fuel infrastructure and removing accumulated carbon dioxide will take decades, even under ambitious policies. By contrast, certain forms of solar geoengineering might lower temperatures relatively quickly, thereby limiting extreme heat and buying vulnerable societies more time to adapt. This possibility could become especially valuable if warming triggers abrupt changes or if international efforts to cut emissions continue to fall short. Researching the technology does not necessarily mean using it; instead, it could provide governments with a better-informed emergency option.

Nevertheless, the environmental uncertainties are formidable. A fall in average global temperature would not guarantee equal benefits everywhere. Altering the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth could disrupt rainfall patterns, potentially easing drought in one region while damaging agriculture in another. Moreover, solar geoengineering would not remove greenhouse gases or prevent problems such as ocean acidification. If an intervention were suddenly stopped while atmospheric carbon levels remained high, temperatures might also rise rapidly, leaving ecosystems and communities little time to adjust.

The political risks are equally serious. Countries are unlikely to agree on a single ideal temperature, since the effects would vary by location. A state suffering from heat might favour stronger intervention, whereas another fearing weaker monsoons might oppose it. Unilateral deployment could therefore generate diplomatic conflict, and governments might blame the technology for damaging weather even when causation was uncertain. Any future use would consequently require transparent international oversight, shared scientific monitoring and rules concerning responsibility and compensation.

Overall, solar geoengineering should be studied because refusing to understand a possible emergency measure would itself be irresponsible. However, its uncertain regional effects and potential to provoke international disputes make premature deployment unacceptable. Emissions reduction, clean energy and adaptation must remain the principal responses to climate change, with geoengineering reserved only for an extreme situation in which its expected benefits clearly outweigh its risks.

BAND 8

Part 2 · Band 8 Sample Answer

The proposal to use solar geoengineering to reflect sunlight has attracted attention as global temperatures continue to rise. Some people see it as a practical additional tool for tackling climate change, while others believe that its environmental and political dangers are too great. I believe research should continue under international supervision, although the technology should not be deployed on a large scale unless there is an exceptional climate emergency.

Those who support its development emphasise that it could work faster than conventional climate policies. Reducing emissions requires major changes to energy, transport and industry, and these changes cannot be completed immediately. Solar geoengineering might reduce some warming within a much shorter period and lessen the severity of heatwaves. It could therefore give countries extra time to strengthen infrastructure, improve food security and move towards cleaner energy. Supporters also argue that studying the technology now would allow decisions during a future crisis to be based on evidence rather than panic.

However, reflecting sunlight would interfere with a climate system that is not fully predictable. Even if average temperatures fell, rainfall might change differently across regions. A scheme that benefited one country could contribute to drought or reduced crop production elsewhere. Furthermore, this approach would only treat the warming effect of greenhouse gases; it would neither remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere nor solve ocean acidification. Dependence on continuous intervention would create another danger, because an unexpected end to the programme could cause temperatures to rise quickly.

There are also difficult political questions. Nations may disagree about how much cooling is desirable and who should control the technology. A powerful country might even act without broad international consent. If floods, droughts or storms occurred afterwards, affected states could accuse the country operating the system, whether or not the link could be proved. This could deepen international tensions and make fair compensation extremely difficult.

In conclusion, solar geoengineering may offer a rapid way to limit temperature increases, so completely rejecting research would be unwise. Nevertheless, the risks of environmental disruption and political conflict are substantial. Development should therefore be restricted to transparent research conducted through international cooperation, while emissions cuts remain the main solution. Actual deployment should be considered only as a carefully controlled emergency response.

BAND 7

Part 2 · Band 7 Sample Answer

Solar geoengineering is intended to lower global temperatures by reflecting part of the sunlight that reaches the Earth. Some people think this technology should be developed because climate change is becoming more serious, while others are concerned about its environmental and political effects. In my opinion, scientists should be allowed to research it, but it should not be widely used unless its safety is much better understood.

One reason to develop solar geoengineering is that it may reduce temperatures more quickly than many existing solutions. Changing power systems, factories and transport so that they produce less carbon can take many years. If temperatures rise dangerously during that period, reflecting some sunlight could possibly reduce extreme heat and protect people in vulnerable areas. Research carried out in advance could also help the international community understand whether this method would be useful in a climate emergency. Without such knowledge, governments might make rushed decisions when conditions become worse.

On the other hand, changing the amount of sunlight received by the planet could have unexpected results. Although the world as a whole might become cooler, some places could experience changes in rainfall. This might harm farming or water supplies, especially in regions that already suffer from drought. The technology would also fail to address every part of climate change because carbon dioxide would remain in the atmosphere. If countries relied on geoengineering and then suddenly stopped it, global temperatures could rise again.

Political disagreements are another major concern. Different countries may want different levels of cooling, depending on their climates and economies. It would be difficult to decide who had the authority to operate the technology. A country negatively affected by unusual weather might blame those responsible for the geoengineering programme, leading to demands for compensation or even international conflict. These problems would be especially serious if one nation acted alone.

To conclude, solar geoengineering could provide a faster response to rising temperatures and may be worth studying. However, the possibility of environmental harm and disputes between countries means that it must be treated with great caution. Governments should continue reducing emissions and developing clean energy, while allowing only limited and internationally supervised research into solar geoengineering.

FREE PRACTICE RESOURCES

Download the IELTS Practice PDF Pack.

Get Listening, Reading, and Writing practice materials for self-study. Use a computer to download the 1.9GB pack.

Download PDF Pack
Chat History
My Notes