Opinion Essay: To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Opinion Essay — Practice 2Same essay type, different question. This is a genuine IELTS question from 2024. Remember: you need to state your position clearly and maintain it throughout.
Some people believe that governments should not provide international aid to other countries when they have unemployment and homelessness in their own country.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
(Based on a question from IELTS Academic 2024)
Paraphrase the question + state your clear position
Topic sentence + explanation + evidence or example
Topic sentence + explanation + evidence or example
Restate your opinion + brief summary. No new ideas.
Before we look at anything — from memory — what arguments exist for prioritising domestic problems? What arguments exist for continuing international aid?
Notice the PARTIALLY AGREE position: the essay acknowledges that domestic problems are important but argues international aid should continue. Pay attention to the opinion language and how counter-arguments are handled.
Opinion language patterns used:
"While it is true that... I believe that..." — acknowledges one side but states clear position
"The primary argument for... is..." — introduces main point with authority
"Admittedly,... However,..." — concedes a point then rebuts it
"It would be short-sighted to..." — dismisses opposite view
"...both possible and necessary" — concludes with balanced optimism
Evidence patterns:
Real examples: WHO, Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway)
Cause-effect: "preventive aid → fewer domestic costs later"
Logic: "false dichotomy", "short-sighted", "fiscally possible"
Look at the model essays from Practice 1 (university education) and Practice 2 (international aid). What is the same? What is different?
Should governments prioritise international aid or focus only on domestic unemployment and homelessness? To what extent do you agree or disagree?
While it is true that many governments face serious domestic challenges such as unemployment and homelessness, I believe that completely withdrawing international aid would be misguided and morally indefensible. This essay argues that governments can and should pursue both objectives simultaneously.
47 words
Why should we continue/cut aid? What is your strongest reason? Explain it with detail and evidence.
The primary argument for maintaining international aid is the moral imperative to alleviate human suffering across borders. Humanitarian organisations such as the WHO have demonstrated that preventive international health programmes reduce the incidence of infectious disease outbreaks that would later cost far more to address domestically. Furthermore, instability in developing regions often creates refugee crises that place additional burdens on wealthy nations. Strategic aid investments today prevent costlier humanitarian interventions tomorrow, making the initial expenditure economically prudent.
109 words
You can either: (1) Concede the opposite view, then counter it, OR (2) State a second argument for your position. Choose one approach.
Admittedly, governments must address homelessness and unemployment within their borders; these are urgent social imperatives. However, the premise of the question presents a false dichotomy. Scandinavian countries such as Denmark and Norway demonstrate that nations can maintain robust welfare systems AND substantial international aid budgets simultaneously. It would be short-sighted to believe that governments can only solve one problem at a time; indeed, strategic fiscal planning and progressive taxation can fund both.
94 words
Restate your opinion in different words. Do not introduce new arguments.
In conclusion, while domestic hardship demands attention, I believe that abandoning international aid would be both ineffective and morally indefensible. A balanced approach that addresses home concerns whilst maintaining global responsibility is both possible and necessary.
38 words