Here is the IELTS Task-Two Question.
| Task 2
People eat food from wider areas nowadays. This means people often eat food which is not from local regions. Do you think the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages? |
Here is the model answer. Notice that there are three separate conclusion. The first (1) is recommended when running out of time, since it is just a concluding sentence to Paragraph 4.
The second (2) and third (3) allow more style. Time, however, is the enemy of almost every IELTS candidate, so think seriously about using Conclusion 1 as the most practical alternative [See also p.100 of my IELTS Writing: Task Two book.]
|
Obviously, human beings need to ingest* nutritional sustenance* – their ‘daily’ bread, in biblical terms. In a globalised world, this fare* is now often sourced from all corners of a given country, and even the globe itself, which raises the issue of whether such a trend is good or not. My opinion is that it certainly has more advantages. One reason is that it encourages local food producers to similarly sell globally, opening up a vast* potential market. Simply put, the entire world beckons* as a potential consumer, allowing farsighted operators to truly prosper*. By doing so, economies are stimulated and standards of living raised. For example, the current mayor of Kaohsiung recently toured China for this very reason, negotiating trade deals for the local fisherman and farmers in his electorate*. Another benefit of having people source sustenance* from different areas is the increased variety of goods thus made available. Naturally grown fruit, vegetables, and specialty snacks are often only seasonally produced, and were once subject to geographical limitations. Now, sourcing elsewhere opens up new enticing* vistas*. For example, in Melbourne, I regularly consumed durian fruit imported from Thailand, and occasionally cherries from Chile, not available locally. Some might reasonably claim that this trend will punish local producers. However, if farmers can rest complacently*, they have no incentive* to streamline production or keep a competitive edge. This inevitably leads to a sluggish* industry, lagging* others. A prime (although non-food) example is the heavily subsidised* British coal-mining industry of the mid-1980s. Despite great public turmoil*, this was eventually rationalised* by the then Prime Minister, Thatcher, in a bitter campaign, but one which history has long since vindicated*, ….. (1) illustrating that the trend towards the consumption of non-local food is certainly positive. [288 words] (2) [New Paragraph] Summing up, the trend towards the consumption of non-local food is certainly positive. Not doing so would be a regression to a past mindset*, inappropriate to the real world in which we live. [308 words] (3) [New Paragraph] Clearly then, by opening untapped markets and offering unprecedented product variety, the trend towards the consumption of non-local food is certainly positive. Not doing so would be a regression to a past mindset*, inappropriate to the real world in which we live. [317 words] |
Here is a list of the difficult vocabulary.
| ingest | (v) |
| sustenance | (n) |
| fare | (n) |
| vast | (adj) |
| to beckon | (v) |
| to prosper | (v) |
| electorate | (n) |
| enticing | (adj) |
| vistas | (n) |
| complacent | (adj) |
| incentive | (n) |
| sluggish | (adj) |
| to lag | (v) |
| to subsidise | (v) |
| turmoil | (n) |
| to rationalise | (v) |
| to vindicate | (v) |
| mindset | (n) |
| to embrace | (v) |
| supremacy | (n) |
| to manipulate |
(v) |