Writing IELTS task 2 _Food and diet

[Tra_Thuu]

Hi everyone! Please give me some feedback about my essay <3 Thank you guys so much

Topic: With an increasing number of people eating fast food, which is eating too regularly can cause health issues, some people think that the only solution is to ban it completely.
To what extent do you agree?

In many recent years, more and more people prefer eating fast food because of its advantages such as saving time and money. However, eating fast food frequently could be the culprit of many severe diseases like obesity, therefore many people believe that a permanent ban on fast food could solve this problem. From my perspective, although I agree that the aforementioned measure could address the problem partly, I am of the opinion that prohibiting fast food is not the most effective solution.

On the one hand, banning people from eating fast food could reduce the amount of fast food consumed by people, and as a result improve their health. There are many studies of Yale University indicating that fast food contains an excessive amount of fat which could cause obesity and cardiovascular diseases in people. Otherwise, avoiding eating fast food might reduce the number of food poisoning cases which could have a negative effect on the immune system of people. To be more specific, the ingredients utilized on fast food progressing are often not fresh, for example, fried chicken wings of KFC are made of chicken frozen for 10 months.

On the other hand, I am convinced that the law of banning fast food is not the measure that could solve the problem completely. As people might turn to eat canned food, which is considered to be healthier than fast food, in order to save time and money. Although it is proved by experts that canned food could maintain a large amount of vitamins and not contain as much fat as fast food, canned food could still do harm to people’ health as canned products might include artificial food colouring and flavouring to maintain its attractive appearance and taste.

To conclude, many people have a belief that banning fast food permanently could be the most effective measure to reduce the risk of having diseases caused by eating fast food too frequently. However, I am of the opinion that prohibiting people from eating fast food is not the only solution that people might embark to eat canned food instead. To alleviate this problem, I recommend that governments should subsidize the price of organic foods in order to encourage people to have a healthier diet.

[Luschen]

Hi Tra Thuu, I think your essay effectively addressed the prompt. You have some good ideas, but a few of your arguments were not as persuasive as they might have been.
You have to “connect the dots” a little more explicitly, especially in your sections on food poisoning and artificial ingredients. You have repeated “people” quite a lot - try to use synonyms or rephrase your sentences so you don’t have to use “people” as much.
Here are some other suggestions:

@Tra_Thuu

Topic: With an increasing number of people eating fast food, which [when eaten] too regularly can cause health issues, some people think that the only solution is to ban it completely.
To what extent do you agree?

In many recent years, {this sounds odd, like you are saying this is happening in some recent years, but not in others} more and more people prefer eating fast food because of its advantages such as saving time and money. However, eating fast food frequently could be the culprit [behind] many severe diseases like obesity[. Therefore,] many [experts] believe that a permanent ban on fast food could solve this problem. From my perspective, although I agree that the aforementioned measure could address the problem partly, I am of the opinion that prohibiting fast food is not the most effective solution.

On the one hand, banning people from eating fast food {or “banning the sale of fast food”} could reduce the amount of fast food consumed by people, and as a result improve their health. There are many studies [done by] Yale University indicating that fast food contains an excessive amount of fat[,] which could cause obesity and cardiovascular diseases in people. Otherwise, {“otherwise” is not correct here - it is used to give an undesirable outcome. - “You must study, otherwise you will fail the class.” Try “In addition” or “Furthermore” } avoiding eating fast food might reduce the number of food poisoning cases which could have a negative effect on the [diners’] immune system of people. {are there many food poisoning cases involving fast food? } To be more specific, the ingredients utilized [in] fast food progressing {“progressing” is incorrect here - I am not sure what you mean to say - Oh, I guess you mean “processing”?} are often not fresh[. For] example, fried chicken wings of KFC are made of chicken frozen for 10 months. { make sure to tie this into food poisoning - frozen food might not be tasty, but how does this relate to food poisoning?}

On the other hand, I am convinced that[ laws] the law of banning fast food is not the measure that could solve the problem completely. [This is because] people might turn to [eating] {“to” here is a preposition, so you need a gerund or another noun as the object} canned food, which is considered to be healthier than fast food, in order to save time and money. Although it [has been proven] by experts that canned food could maintain a large amount of vitamins and not contain as much fat as fast food, canned food could still do harm to [consumers’] health as canned products might include artificial food colouring and flavouring to maintain [their] attractive appearance and taste. {I think you need to go one more step and show how artificial colors and flavors are dangerous or unhealthy}

To conclude, many people have a belief that banning fast food permanently could be the most effective measure to reduce the risk of having diseases caused by eating fast food too frequently. However, I am of the opinion that prohibiting people from eating fast food is not the [ideal] solution[, in] that [the public] might embark [on eating] canned food instead. To alleviate this problem, I recommend that governments should subsidize the price of organic foods in order to encourage people to have [healthier diets].

[Tra_Thuu]

Thank you so so so much, Luschen. I wish I could reply to you earlier I was too busy with Tet holiday, there were thousands of thing to finish.

I am a bit confused about the structure of the essay in IELTS writing task 2. With the question “Discuss both views and give your opinion…”

A. Could I write 2 body paragraphs like this:
1: I disagree with this view because of ONE reason…
2: However I am convinced that this view is true because of ONE reason…

B: How could I express that I am more gravitated by the view of agreement than the view of disagreement?

Thank you so so so so so much <3

[Luschen]

I think it is safer to have a three paragraph response. The prompt is asking you to give a three part response - discuss both views AND give your opinion. The way I read this is to give two objective paragraphs written in third person where you give the two viewpoints, and then give an additional subjective paragraph written in first person where you give your specific viewpoint. I find it works well to combine this third paragraph with your conclusion. A conclusion is going to sum up the other two paragraphs anyway, which is really what you should be doing when you give your opinion. I think this format is especially effective:

Intro

Body paragraph 1 - Viewpoint 1 is supported by reason A and reason B

Body paragraph 2 - Viewpoint 2 is supported by reason C and reason D

Opinion/Conclusion - I support viewpoint 2. Reason A and Reason B are not really that important or convincing because … Reason C and Reason D are very powerful and persuasive because … Therefore, even though viewpoint 1 has some merit, I feel everyone should support viewpoint 2.