July 2026 IELTS Writing Task 2 Predictions

Dangerous sports can cause serious injuries, so some people believe that governments should prohibit them. I disagree with a general ban. Adults should usually be able to choose demanding activities, provided that organisers control avoidable dangers and participants understand the risks.

The strongest reason for allowing these sports is that risk does not make an activity worthless. Climbing, for example, can require careful preparation, physical fitness and cooperation between partners. A beginner who learns to check equipment and follow an instructor may develop useful judgement as well as confidence. These benefits would disappear if every activity with a substantial risk of injury became illegal. Moreover, a ban could push enthusiasts towards informal groups with weaker supervision, making the activity harder to monitor rather than making it vanish.

Nevertheless, individual choice cannot justify careless commercial operations. A company that sells climbing experiences should maintain its equipment, assess local conditions and explain when a trip must be cancelled. Authorities could require suitable training for instructors and inspect operators regularly. Participants should also be told what experience an activity requires, instead of being attracted by advertising that presents every challenge as suitable for everyone. Where an operator repeatedly ignores these obligations, suspending its licence would be more proportionate than banning the entire sport. Access restrictions may also be reasonable during particularly dangerous weather, when a rescue could put other people at risk.

In conclusion, dangerous sports should remain available under enforceable safety rules. This approach recognises the value of personal choice while placing responsibility on both participants and organisers to prevent unnecessary harm.

Travelling can become more expensive when the cost of providing transport and accommodation rises or when demand grows faster than available capacity. Although no single measure can remove every increase, better transport options and clearer pricing can help travellers manage the resulting pressure.

One possible cause is that operators face higher running costs. An airline must pay for fuel, maintenance and staff before it can offer a flight, so increases in these expenses can affect ticket prices. Accommodation providers face a similar problem when their energy or repair bills rise. A second cause is concentrated demand. If many families want to visit the same destination during a school holiday, the existing flights and hotel rooms may not meet that demand. Providers can then charge more even if their own costs have changed very little.

Solutions should reflect these different causes. For journeys between nearby cities, governments could improve reliable rail and bus services, giving passengers an alternative to an expensive flight. This would also make the market less dependent on a single transport option. Regulators could require companies to display the full price before a customer starts booking, including unavoidable charges. Such transparency would not create additional seats, but it would make comparison easier and discourage misleading offers. Travellers with flexible schedules could choose quieter periods or less crowded destinations, while those tied to fixed dates would benefit more from affordable public transport. Simply ordering all providers to reduce prices could leave some routes financially unviable.

Overall, rising operating costs and seasonal demand can both increase travel prices. Expanding practical alternatives and improving price transparency would address these pressures more effectively than assuming that every increase has the same cause.

Doctors, nurses and teachers make essential contributions to society, yet some sports and entertainment stars earn far more. I agree that essential workers deserve adequate and often improved pay, but I disagree that their salaries should always exceed those of successful entertainers. Public needs and private commercial earnings cannot be compared through a single rule.

There is a strong case for improving the rewards offered to essential workers. Their jobs can involve lengthy training, difficult decisions and responsibility for other people's welfare. If a hospital cannot retain experienced nurses because local living costs are too high, patient care may suffer as staff leave. Better salaries could help the hospital recruit and keep suitable employees. The same reasoning applies to a school struggling to attract qualified teachers. These arguments justify investment based on working conditions and the quality of public services, rather than on resentment of famous people.

However, the income of a small number of celebrities reflects a different payment system. An athlete may attract an audience that buys tickets, subscriptions and merchandise, while an actor may help a film reach viewers in many countries. Paying every teacher more than the most successful star would place an unpredictable burden on education budgets. It could also divert money from buildings, equipment or additional staff. A more sensible approach would be to establish fair professional pay scales, review them against living costs and use taxation to support public services. This would recognise social value without making public salaries follow exceptional entertainment contracts.

In conclusion, essential professionals should be paid fairly and sufficiently to sustain good services. Their remuneration should not, however, be required to surpass every sports or entertainment salary, because that comparison provides an unstable basis for public spending.

Some people support government purchases of large artworks for outdoor display, while others consider this an unnecessary expense. I partly agree with public funding for such projects. Outdoor art can improve shared spaces, but purchases should be affordable, accessible and chosen through a transparent process.

A useful public artwork can give residents a reason to enjoy an ordinary location. For instance, a sculpture beside a walking route might become a meeting point, while a work that reflects local history could encourage discussion between generations. Unlike an exhibition with an entrance fee, an outdoor installation can be encountered by people who would not normally visit a gallery. These benefits suggest that art can form part of a city's public facilities rather than being treated only as private decoration. Supporting an artist may also create opportunities for workshops in nearby schools or community centres.

However, size and visibility do not automatically make a purchase worthwhile. A council must consider maintenance, safety and the effect on the surrounding space, not merely the initial price. An expensive installation that blocks access or deteriorates quickly could become a burden for residents. More importantly, art should not take priority over urgent repairs to unsafe housing or essential services. A reasonable policy would set a limited cultural budget, publish the total expected cost and invite community input before approving a major purchase. Smaller projects or temporary displays could test public interest before the authority makes a large commitment. The purpose should be a lasting public benefit, rather than simply attracting attention to the administration.

In conclusion, governments can justify buying outdoor art when it serves the community and fits within a responsible budget. I support that conditional approach, rather than either unrestricted spending or a complete rejection of cultural investment.

In many societies, people can expect to live longer than earlier generations. Improvements in health protection and everyday living conditions help explain this change. Longer lives are valuable, but they can also create challenges for care services and systems that were designed around shorter periods of retirement.

One important cause is a greater ability to prevent and manage illness. Access to treatment can allow people to survive conditions that previously ended their lives much earlier. Prevention matters too: safer water, better sanitation and information about health risks can reduce exposure to avoidable dangers. These developments work together. A person who grows up in a safer environment and receives timely medical attention has more opportunities to remain healthy over time. Improvements in housing and workplace safety can reinforce that effect by reducing risks outside hospitals. The extent of these benefits still depends on whether people can actually access the relevant services.

A longer lifespan can nevertheless increase demand for support in later life. Some older people need assistance with transport, meals or daily activities, which can place pressure on relatives when professional services are limited. A daughter caring for a parent, for example, may need to reduce her paid working hours if no affordable support is available. Retirement arrangements can face pressure as well if people draw a pension for more years without corresponding changes in funding. These difficulties do not mean that older people are merely a cost: many continue working, volunteering or caring for family members. They show why institutions need to adapt to a changing population.

Overall, better protection from illness and safer living conditions contribute to longer lives. The resulting challenges concern the organisation and funding of care and retirement, rather than longevity itself being an undesirable development.

Some people have moved from cities to rural areas in search of a different way of life. Housing pressures and greater flexibility in where certain jobs can be performed may help explain this trend. I consider it positive overall when newcomers can access suitable services and contribute to the communities they join.

For many households, the appeal begins with space and affordability. A family living in a small city flat may prefer a rural home with room for children or a garden. The attraction can also be environmental: less traffic and easier access to outdoor activities may suit people who find urban life stressful. Remote working makes this choice possible for some employees because they no longer need to travel to an office every day. However, this explanation does not apply equally to workers whose jobs require a physical presence, such as those in shops or hospitals. Their opportunities remain tied more closely to the location of an employer.

The move can benefit both households and rural communities. New residents may support local shops, join voluntary groups and help sustain services that need a reliable customer base. A person who enjoys the surroundings may also feel more committed to staying in the area. There are disadvantages, though. Additional demand can raise housing costs for existing residents, and long car journeys may replace short urban trips if public transport is limited. These problems make planning important. Communities need suitable transport and housing policies so that growth improves everyday life instead of excluding local people. Newcomers should also understand the area's practical limitations before moving.

In conclusion, a desire for more space and flexible working can encourage relocation to the countryside. I view the trend favourably, provided that access to housing and services is managed for existing residents as well as new arrivals.

Video calls allow people to conduct business without travelling to the same location. This has clear advantages in cost and access, but it can also make communication less reliable or reduce the informal contact through which working relationships develop. The value of the approach depends partly on the purpose of the meeting.

The main advantage is that a conversation can take place with much less time spent travelling. A small business could discuss a proposal with an overseas customer without buying flights or closing its office for several days. This can make opportunities available to firms that could not afford frequent travel. Staff in different locations can also respond to a problem quickly, since arranging a short call may be easier than finding a date for everyone to meet in person. When used for a focused discussion with a clear agenda, the format can make cooperation more convenient and reduce avoidable expense.

On the other hand, the quality of the exchange depends on both technology and meeting habits. A weak connection can interrupt an explanation, and participants may miss signs that someone wants to speak. These difficulties can be particularly frustrating when a team is discussing a sensitive disagreement or a complicated design. Video calls may also remove the informal conversations that occur before or after a physical meeting. A new employee might find it harder to ask a colleague a minor question if every interaction requires a scheduled appointment. Clear agendas, smaller groups and written follow-up can help, but they cannot make every type of interaction equally effective online.

Overall, business video calls offer substantial convenience and can widen access to customers and colleagues. Their disadvantages include technical interruptions and fewer informal exchanges, so organisations should choose the format according to the task rather than using it automatically for every meeting.

Advances in artificial intelligence and robotics have led some people to predict that classroom teachers will eventually be replaced. I disagree with complete replacement. Technology can carry out useful teaching tasks, but education also requires judgement about learners and relationships that cannot simply be reduced to delivering information.

Digital tools can support several parts of a lesson. A program might provide additional exercises, offer immediate corrections to a simple answer or let a learner revisit an explanation at a suitable pace. This could free a teacher to spend more time with pupils who need individual attention. A student learning vocabulary, for example, may benefit from repeated practice outside the classroom instead of waiting for the next lesson. Such uses show that technology can extend the resources available to a school. They do not establish that the school no longer needs teachers, because choosing suitable material and responding to difficulties remain separate responsibilities.

A teacher must consider more than whether a response matches an answer key. If a pupil stops participating, the cause might be confusion, anxiety or a problem within the group. Deciding how to respond requires knowledge of the learner and the classroom situation. Teachers also organise discussion, resolve disagreements and help pupils work together. An automated system could provide information about these situations, but responsibility for interpreting that information should remain with an accountable adult. Schools would still need someone to check whether generated explanations were appropriate and to question recommendations that seemed unsuitable. Replacing that role entirely could leave learners without meaningful human support when a problem falls outside a system's expected patterns.

In conclusion, technology is likely to become a valuable assistant in education, but assistance is different from replacement. Teachers should use digital tools to improve learning while retaining responsibility for instruction, relationships and decisions about individual pupils.

Online education gives learners an alternative to attending a physical classroom. Supporters value its flexibility, while others believe that learning in person provides stronger interaction and support. In my view, online study is highly useful for independent learners, but classroom education is generally preferable when students need close guidance or practical instruction.

Those who favour online education can point to the control it gives learners over their schedules. Someone with a full-time job may be able to complete a course in the evening without travelling to a campus. Recorded explanations can also be revisited, allowing a student to spend longer on a difficult idea without slowing down a whole class. Where an appropriate course is unavailable locally, online access may offer a learning opportunity that would otherwise be difficult to obtain. These advantages are especially important for adults who have clear goals and can organise their own study time.

The argument for classroom education concerns the quality of immediate interaction. A teacher can notice hesitation, invite questions and adjust an explanation before a misunderstanding becomes established. Students can also learn through discussion and shared practical activities. For example, a group carrying out a laboratory exercise needs appropriate equipment and supervision, which a video lesson alone cannot provide. Although online courses can include live discussions, they still depend on reliable connections and active participation from students who may be easily distracted at home. For beginners who have not yet developed effective study habits, regular attendance and direct guidance can make a substantial difference.

In conclusion, both approaches have strengths, and neither is automatically best for every learner. I favour classroom teaching for students who need structured support or practical experience, while recognising that well-designed online courses can be an excellent option for more independent learners with limited time or access.

A growing population needs additional housing, but some people argue that governments should concentrate on building homes rather than providing jobs. I disagree with treating these priorities as alternatives. Housing is essential, yet people also need reliable incomes and access to work if new communities are to function well.

There are good reasons for investing in homes. When suitable accommodation is scarce, families may have to live in overcrowded conditions or spend an excessive share of their income on rent. Building additional housing can reduce this pressure and allow people to live closer to schools, relatives and other services. Public involvement may be particularly important where private developers do not provide affordable options. However, the value of new homes depends partly on their location. A large estate far from transport and employment could leave residents with expensive journeys and limited opportunities, even if the buildings themselves are adequate.

Employment therefore needs to be considered alongside construction. A household without a stable income may struggle to pay for its accommodation, while a community with few businesses may have difficulty sustaining shops and local services. Governments do not have to create every job directly, but they can support access to work through transport, training and suitable infrastructure. For example, a housing project could be planned together with a bus connection to an existing employment centre and space for local enterprises. Construction itself may provide temporary work, but long-term planning must look beyond the building phase. Coordinating these decisions would help ensure that residents can afford to remain in the homes being provided.

In conclusion, governments should expand housing where population growth creates a need, but they should not neglect employment. A coordinated approach is more useful than prioritising buildings alone, because successful communities require both places to live and ways to earn a living.