Essay Practice 2: Reducing environmental impact in cities
Essay Practice 2 of a set220-260 words. Semi-formal discursive essay.
Four paragraphs: introduction → body on bullet A → body on bullet B → conclusion with a clear verdict. Two bullets developed in depth. Your opinion lives in how you evaluate each bullet (concession, comparison, qualifier) and is stated cleanly at the end. The structure card below has the word counts.
In your English class you have been discussing what ordinary people can do to reduce their environmental impact in cities. Now your teacher has asked you to write an essay on this topic.
Write an essay discussing TWO of the ways below. Explain which one you think would have the most positive impact, giving reasons in support of your answer.
Some opinions expressed in the discussion:
Write your essay in 220-260 words in an appropriate style.
This is the structure Cambridge expects. Four paragraphs, two bullets developed in depth, opinion delivered through evaluation and verdict — not through a fourth invented idea.
Paraphrase the topic + name the two bullets you'll discuss + hint at your verdict.
Topic sentence + advantages + concession (limits/qualifier) + example. Develop in depth.
Topic sentence + evaluation + explicit comparison with Body 1 + your evaluative angle.
Clear verdict — which of the two bullets matters more, and why. No new arguments.
Which two of the three given bullets will you discuss? (The model below uses public transport and reducing food waste.)
What OTHER action could reduce a city-dweller's environmental impact that isn't in the three bullets? Some examples (but come up with your own):
From memory — no notes, no dictionary — brainstorm arguments for the two bullets you picked AND your own third measure.
Read carefully. Notice how the writer (1) discusses two of the three bullets, (2) adds a fresh point of their own, and (3) delivers a clear verdict. Highlighted phrases are the advanced structures examiners reward.
Total: 252 words ✓ (within 220-260)
Participle clause (intro): "With cities generating most global emissions..." — adds cause/setting in one phrase
Emphatic opener (Body 1): "It is undeniable that..." — concedes the obvious before qualifying
Tricolon (Body 1): "reduces emissions, congestion and air pollution" — three parallel items = rhetorical weight
Concessive linker (Body 1): "That said,..." — pivots from advantage to limitation
Contrastive linker (Body 2): "by contrast" — signals the second bullet
Topic-specific lexis: "emissions linked to methane from landfill" — precise C1 vocabulary
Own-point signal (Body 3): "A further measure worth adding to the discussion is..." — examiner IMMEDIATELY recognises independent thinking
Specific examples (Body 3): "Copenhagen and Utrecht" — real places beat vague claims every time
Conditional inversion (Conclusion): "Were cities to invest seriously..." — instead of "If cities invested seriously..."
Cleft-pattern (Conclusion): "it is well-funded public transport — complemented by cycling infrastructure — that offers..." — puts emphasis exactly where you want it.
Discuss TWO of: public transport / reducing food waste / saving electricity. Add your own point. Explain which has the most positive impact.
With cities generating most global emissions, the question of how urban residents should respond has never been more pressing. This essay will focus on two widely discussed actions — using public transport and reducing food waste — before adding a measure of my own. Ultimately, I will argue that public transport has the greatest impact.
53 words
Evaluate it — show the benefit AND an honest limit. Band 5 essays reward balance, not cheerleading.
It is undeniable that moving commuters onto buses, trams and trains reduces emissions, congestion and air pollution simultaneously. A single full bus can take dozens of cars off the road. That said, the environmental benefit is only realised if services are frequent, affordable and widely available — conditions many smaller cities have yet to meet.
54 words
Less scaffolding — you lead. Your job: contrast this bullet with Body 1, and hint at which is more effective.
Reducing food waste, by contrast, demands less infrastructure and more personal discipline. Households that plan their shopping carefully and freeze leftovers can cut emissions linked to methane from landfill while also saving money. However, because the impact depends on millions of small individual choices, progress tends to be slow and difficult to measure at city scale.
56 words
This paragraph is not required by Cambridge. Most candidates score better by developing the two bullets in depth and skipping this tab. Add a fourth body paragraph only if you (1) write naturally short and need help reaching 220 words, or (2) are confidently aiming for Band 5 and have spare word-count budget. If you add it, keep it to 45-55 words so the two main bullets still get full treatment.
This is the paragraph that lifts the essay to top-band territory. You add a factor NOT in the three bullets — showing independent thinking. Keep it slightly shorter (45-55 words).
Any genuine environmental action that isn't "public transport", "food waste" or "saving electricity at home". Strong options include: active travel (cycling/walking), buying less overall, community action, supporting second-hand markets, voting for green policy, installing solar, or changing diet (less meat).
A further measure worth adding to the discussion is active travel — cycling and walking — supported by proper infrastructure. Cities such as Copenhagen and Utrecht have shown that when safe cycle lanes are widely available, residents switch willingly, cutting emissions while also improving public health — a rare double benefit.
48 words
Short and decisive. Name the winner — and weave in your own point from Body 3. No new arguments.
In conclusion, although reducing food waste cannot be dismissed, it is well-funded public transport — complemented by cycling infrastructure — that offers the greatest environmental return. Were cities to invest seriously, urban emissions would fall far more quickly than through individual action alone.
41 words
Read it as one piece. Do the five sections flow? Is your own point distinct from the two given bullets? Is the verdict clear?