IELTS writing task II - economic growth

[thuhienvn1998]

please give me some comments. Thank you so much.

MY TOPIC: Some people say that economic growth is the only way to end hunger and poverty, while others say that economic growth is damaging the environment so it must be stopped. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

MY ESSAY:

In a few recent years, the advantages and disadvantages of economic development have become a considerable controversy in public. Some people think that the improvement of the economy is the only method to address the problems of hunger and poverty, others argue that economic growth should be prevented because of its environmental damages. I totally agree with the latter opinion.

On the one hand, there is an argument that the development of the economy is a sole cure for hungry and poverty situations. A reason which is put forward the view is that the economy growing can make significant contributions to an increase in the life quality of all citizens, especially a number of poor persons in developing countries. In fact, a nation with economic growth will have a higher level of gross domestic products which are stickled down all citizens of the country in various ways. It means that the more the economy goes up, the more the income and living standards of the inhabitants will increase. As a result, they would gradually escape from poverty and the lack of food.

On the other hand, several individuals put forward the opposing view that there should be actions to stop the rise of the economy since it is causing a lot of negative impacts on the environment. Take the operation of factories in the industrial sector for example. A great deal of carbon dioxide which is the result of the burning a huge amount of fossil fuel in industrial activities is main factor leading many environmental problems such as a rise in sea levels, global warming and greenhouse effect. In addition, agricultural production should carry a good part of the blame for the deterioration of ecosystems. For example, to generate a huge yield of produce, many farmers have used a large number of chemical substances, especially chemical fertilizer and pesticides. Consequently, these plant protection substances would result in the pollutions of land and water, even serious aftereffects on habitats in which humans and animals live. Therefore, many solutions need to be carried out in order to put economic development in control.

In conclusion, some people contend that economic improvement is the only way to eliminate the problems of hunger and poverty. However, I agree with others’ opinion that the growth of the economy should be put in the end since it has adverse effects on the environment.

[Luschen]

Hi Nguyen Thi Thu Hien, sorry for my delay, I am on another trip out of town. I think this prompt is a little odd, since it seems to combine two quite different topics, poverty and the environment.
It just seems very broad for a short essay. I think you have done a pretty good job here considering these factors. Your first paragraph is not as persuasive or informative though, because you spend too much time just repeating the prompt. Your second body paragraph is better, with specific examples. I don’t think you have elaborated your specific opinion enough though. You really only have one single sentence in the conclusion that gives your opinion, which really makes up one third of the prompt’s question. It would be good to elaborate your position a little more, even if you have to shorten the other two paragraphs somewhat. Here are some other suggestions:

@thuhienvn1998

In a few recent years, the advantages and disadvantages of economic development have become a considerable controversy in [the public sphere]. {this seems a little too general to be a specific controversy} Some people think that the improvement of the economy is the only method to address the problems of hunger and poverty, [while] others argue that economic growth should be prevented because of its environmental damages. I totally agree with the latter opinion. {try to expand your thesis to match the prompt - you need to state that both sides have arguments, but you side with those who prioritize protecting the environment}

On the one hand, there is an argument that the development of the economy is [the] sole {if it is “sole”, there can only be one} cure for hungry and poverty situations. {this last phrase sounds odd - a “hungry situation”?} A reason which is put forward [is] the view that [growing] the economy growing can make significant contributions to an increase in the [quality of life] of all citizens, especially a number of poor persons in developing countries. {this isn’t really the reason - this is just repeating the claim of the prompt - your paragraph should include support of this idea, not just restating the idea} In fact, a nation with [robust] economic growth will have a higher level of gross domestic products which [trickle down to] all citizens of the country in various ways. It means that the more the economy goes up, the more the income and living standards of the inhabitants will increase. As a result, they would gradually escape from poverty and the lack of food [that accompanies it]. {to me, this doesn’t do that great of a job of addressing the prompt’s statement - you need to show why some people think this is the “only way” to combat poverty, so you probably need to mention income redistribution or other poverty fighting methods. Plus, this seems very vague and lacking specific explanation.}

On the other hand, several individuals {this sounds like 5 or 6 or maybe 11 or 12 people believe this} put forward the opposing view that there should be actions to stop {this seems a little harsh - maybe “limit” or “regulate”} the rise of the economy since it is causing a lot of negative impacts on the environment. Take the operation of factories in the industrial sector for example. A great deal of carbon dioxide[,] which is the result of the burning [of] a huge amount of fossil fuel in industrial activities[,] is [the] main factor leading many environmental problems such as a rise in sea levels, global warming and [the] greenhouse effect. In addition, agricultural production should carry a good part of the blame for the deterioration of ecosystems. For example, to generate a huge yield of produce, many farmers have used a large number of chemical substances, especially chemical fertilizer and pesticides. Consequently, these plant protection substances [have resulted] in the [pollution] of land and water, even serious aftereffects on habitats in which humans and animals live. Therefore, many solutions need to be carried out in order to put economic development [under] control.

In conclusion, some people contend that economic improvement is the only way to eliminate the problems of hunger and poverty. However, I agree with others’ opinion that the growth of the economy should be put in the end {“put in the end” is incorrect - I guess you mean “should be considered of secondary importance”] since it has adverse effects on the environment.