IELTS Essay Question

Structure

The question will always ask you to discuss an issue that is more or
less debatable. Your job is to debate the issue throughout the essay, to
reach a conclusion at the end.
e.g Should rich countries pay more for environmental
damage?

INTRO

First, define the issue.

e.g Should rich countries pay more for environmental damage?
The issue is whether rich countries pay enough for environmental
damage. Some people think yes, some think otherwise so its a
debatable issue.
So in your essay, youll start by saying something like this:
A contentious/debatable/controversial issue of our times has been
whether rich countries pay enough for environmental damage.

Then why is this issue contentious/debatable/cotroversial? a.k.a

Why did they give you this question on the exam?
Here, you think about the points you will discuss in the essay. Why
would rich countries pay more? Why should they not pay more?
Here, you also decide on which side you are. Are you in favour of rich
countries paying more or not? But dont say it just yet in the intro; just
decide on the points youre going to discuss in order that it favours
your side.
This will be your thesis statement.
e.g Maybe rich countries should pay more for environmental damage
because they usually damage it more than poor countries. (thats 1)

Maybe they would pay more because they can afford it more than other
countries.
Maybe they shouldnt pay more, because its not fair.
Depending on which side you are on, you should choose 2 points for your
side and 1 point against your side.
Link them with linking words.
So, for our example it should be something like this:
Although such a situation might seem unfair to rich countries,those
that favour greater contribution by them argue that rich countries are
more responsible for damage to the environment and that they are
more able to afford paying for it than poorer countries.
The words that are in bold, you can use with almost any essay
question.

So, in the end, your INTRO will look like this:

A contentious issue of our times has been whether rich countries
pay enough for environmental damage. Although such a situation
might seem unfair to rich countries, those that favour greater
contribution by them argue that rich countries are more
responsible for damage to the environment and that they are
more able to afford paying for it than poorer countries.
You can add different details if you want, like examples of rich
countries, examples of environmental damage... etc.

BODY PARAGRAPHS

Start with a thesis sentence.

This will be 1 of the points which you mentioned in the intro.
For our example:
It is common knowledge that rich countries, with bigger industries,
contribute more to damaging the environment.

Then explain why.

Here, you have the freedom to say whatever proves the point.

For our example:

Rich countries like the USA, China or Germany pollute the air much
more than other countries, such as Romania and Bulgaria. The companies
that operate in such countries try to minimize costs and therefore use
methods which damage waters, forrests and the air. This destruction of the
environment affects not only them, but the whole world. Therefore, it is only
right that such countries pay more for the damage they create.

So in the end, our paragraph is made of these two steps:

It is common knowledge that rich countries, with bigger industries,
contribute more to damaging the environment. Rich countries like the USA,
China or Germany pollute the air much more than other countries, such as
Romania and Bulgaria. The companies that operate in such countries try to
minimize costs and therefore use methods which damage waters, forrests
and the air. This destruction of the environment affects not only them, but the
whole world. Therefore, it is only right that such countries pay more for the
damage they create.

Do this for each paragraph:

For example:
Another reason for more wealthy countries to contribute more
money towards fixing environmental damage is that they are more able to
afford it. Less wealthy countries often give attention to more immediate
internal issues; economic and social problems prevent them from allocating
enough money to protecting the environment. In this case, richer countries
with money to spare can help the entire international community by
protecting the environment using their wealth and expertise. Hence, greater
involvement by rich nations in environmental problems can be seen as an
international duty.

And then for the paragraph against your side:

Despite these arguments, rich nations paying more for
environmental damage might seem unfair, as it is poorer nations that care
less about the environment and damage it. Rich countries have modern
methods of production and lifestyles that try to protect nature, such as green
energy and special plastics that do not affect the environment as much as
they used to. By comparison, nations less wealthy still burn much coal and oil
and do not give attention to their damaging the environment. This makes it

unfair for rich countries to bear the costs of deliberate actions by peoples
who give no attention to the preservation of nature.

CONCLUSION

Sum up what you have said.

On balance, although rich countries might contribute more to pollution
through their industries and are more able to pay for preserving the natural
world, it can be unfair given the ignorant actions of poorer countries which
damage the environment.

Then, say which side of the argument is stronger: the final

conclusion.
Despite the debatable nature of the issue, it is clear that rich
countries, if they are to be good citizens of the world, should use their
resources to help reduce the effects of environmental damage.

So structure is:
INTRO: say what the issue is, what are the points that make the issue
debatable (the points youll use in the body (2 for, 1 against, usually)
POINT FOR: thesis statement, explanation
POINT FOR: thesis statement, explanation
POINT AGAINST: thesis statement, explanation
CONCLUSION: sum up points, say which is stronger (your conclusion)

TIPS:

If you can, use synonyms to avoid repeating yourself over and over
again. Like say destruction of nature sometimes instead of
environmental damages, or wealthy nations instead of rich
countries.
Use the words and phrases I put in bold when I wrote examples of intro,
body and conclusion.
Have 2 points for the side you are on, 1 point against and make the one
against seem weaker than the ones for.
Dont use words you dont know well.
Thats all.

The essay we wrote in this explanation:

A contentious issue of our times has been whether rich countries pay enough for
environmental damage. Although such a situation might seem unfair to rich
countries, those that favour greater contribution by them argue that rich countries
are more responsible for damage to the environment and that they are more able to
afford paying for it than poorer countries.
It is common knowledge that rich countries, with bigger industries, contribute more
to damaging the environment. Rich countries like the USA, China or Germany
pollute the air much more than other countries, such as Romania and Bulgaria. The
companies that operate in such countries try to minimize costs and therefore use
methods which damage waters, forrests and the air. This destruction of the
environment affects not only them, but the whole world. Therefore, it is only right
that such countries pay more for the damage they create.
Another reason for more wealthy countries to contribute more money towards fixing
environmental damage is that they are more able to afford it. Less wealthy
countries often give attention to more immediate internal issues; economic and
social problems prevent them from allocating enough money to protecting the
environment. In this case, richer countries with money to spare can help the entire
international community by protecting the environment using their wealth and
expertise. Hence, greater involvement by rich nations in environmental problems
can be seen as an international duty.
Despite these arguments, rich nations paying more for environmental damage
might seem unfair, as it is poorer nations that care less about the environment and
damage it. Rich countries have modern methods of production and lifestyles that try
to protect nature, such as green energy and special plastics that do not affect the
environment as much as they used to. By comparison, nations less wealthy still
burn much coal and oil and do not give attention to their damaging the
environment. This makes it unfair for rich countries to bear the costs of deliberate
actions by peoples who give no attention to the preservation of nature.
On balance, although rich countries might contribute more to pollution through their
industries and are more able to pay for preserving the natural world, it can be unfair
given the ignorant actions of poorer countries which damage the environment.
Despite the debatable nature of the issue, it is clear that rich countries, if they are
to be good citizens of the world, should use their resources to help reduce the
effects of environmental damage.
414 WORDS