CHỮA ĐỀ THI THẬT BAND 8.0+ IELTS WRITING TASK 2 NGÀY 29/6/2024

ESSAY INFORMATION:

Written by: IELTS I-Ready, 30/6/2024

Marked by: Ex-BC Examiner

(IELTS Academic – 29/6/2024)

Question: The use of mobile phones is as antisocial as smoking. Smoking is banned in certain places so mobile phones should be banned like smoking. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

ANSWER:

Many believe that the prohibition of the usage of cellular phones in certain public areas should be applied, comparing its detrimental impacts on social development to the consumption of cigarettes. Although using cell phones in communal venues can be disruptive sometimes, I mostly disagree with this opinion due to human right infringement and the distinct characteristics between these devices and smoking. 

One valid argument for my opposition is that this may encroach on the freedom of users as they have the autonomy to use their personal belongings if it does not harm others. Realistically, they utilise their phones for various purposes ranging from business, urgent family matters or a mere means of entertainment. Therefore, preventing them from these actions may provoke a sense of resentment and unfair treatment, leading to social unrest.

I also consider that mobile phones do not pose direct damage to society. Unlike smoking which entails certain health complications such as respiratory diseases or cancer for not only smokers but the surrounding individuals, the negative effects of communication handhelds are often imperceptible or even null. Thus, a partial ban on these gadgets is disproportionate. 

However, my concession is that spending too much time on phones can be disturbing in some circumstances. For example, it may reduce the social interaction between people during an actual gathering because people may feel it unnecessary to communicate with their loved ones, and instead focus on the screen, leading to a sense of alienation. 

In conclusion, while I admit that outlawing cell phones in certain settings can be justified by decreased meaningful conversation, I still somewhat deny that this is a thoughtful reformation. This is because this is a violation of unalienable human rights and these gadgets may not cause immediate consequences to society. Hence, an outright ban should be substituted by public education about phone etiquette and responsible usage. (308 words)

Highlight Vocabulary: