Writing theory

Example A: a qualified opinion

Original practice prompt: Some people believe city governments should make public transport free for all residents. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Write at least 250 words.

Position: Support targeted fare assistance rather than universal free travel.

Paragraph plan: Explain the value of lower fares for people who need help; explain why reliability and capacity also require funding; conclude with the policy balance.

Model essay

Whether city residents should pay to use public transport is a matter of debate. Although removing fares could help people with limited incomes, I do not support making every journey free. Cities should instead provide targeted assistance while protecting the funding needed for dependable services.

Lower travel costs can improve access to employment and education. For a person on a tight budget, the cost of repeated bus journeys may make it difficult to accept work far from home or attend a training course. Free or heavily discounted passes would reduce this obstacle. For example, a job seeker could travel to several interviews without choosing between transport and other essential expenses. This is a strong reason for cities to assist residents who cannot comfortably afford normal fares. However, it does not establish that equally generous support is necessary for passengers with high incomes.

A universal free service could also compete with other transport priorities. Vehicles, maintenance, and staff still need funding when passengers no longer pay. If a city removes fares without replacing that revenue, it may struggle to improve frequency or expand capacity. Yet these improvements can matter more to commuters than a small reduction in their daily costs. A worker who regularly arrives late because buses are unreliable may continue driving even when a bus ticket costs nothing. Maintaining affordable fares for most passengers, while offering concessions to others, would allow cities to address both financial access and service quality.

In conclusion, I partly agree with reducing the cost of public transport, but the support should be directed towards those who need it. Reliable and adequately funded services, combined with targeted fare assistance, offer a more convincing approach than free travel for everyone.

Commentary: The introduction gives a qualified answer to “all residents.” Each body paragraph develops one reason for that answer. The example is illustrative rather than a fabricated study. The conclusion matches the policy proposed at the beginning.

Example B: discussing both views

Original practice prompt: Some people think secondary school students should specialise early in subjects connected to their future careers. Others believe they should study a broad range of subjects until they leave school. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. Write at least 250 words.

Position: Retain a broad core and allow limited specialisation through options.

Model essay

People disagree about whether secondary education should prepare students for a particular career or maintain a wide curriculum. Early specialisation can help learners develop relevant skills, but I believe schools should retain a broad core of subjects while offering some opportunities to specialise.

Supporters of early specialisation argue that students benefit from spending more time on subjects connected to their goals. A learner who is interested in engineering, for example, could develop a stronger foundation by taking additional mathematics and design classes. Greater depth may also make school more engaging because students can see a connection between their lessons and their ambitions. Where a student's interests are already well established, a completely uniform timetable may limit useful progress. Providing specialist options can therefore be a reasonable way to accommodate different abilities and aspirations.

However, a broad curriculum protects students whose plans are uncertain or change over time. A teenager who chooses a narrow pathway may later discover a field that was not available within it. Continued exposure to science, languages, the arts, and social subjects gives learners more opportunities to identify their strengths. It also develops abilities that remain useful across occupations. Someone pursuing a technical career still needs to communicate clearly and assess information, while a future writer can benefit from understanding scientific evidence. For these reasons, I consider a shared academic core more valuable than requiring students to commit early to a small set of career subjects.

In conclusion, specialisation can increase depth and motivation, but it should operate within a broad secondary education. Schools can combine compulsory core subjects with a limited choice of specialist courses, allowing students to explore career interests without closing off too many future opportunities.

Commentary: The first body paragraph explains the case for specialisation fairly. The second explains the value of breadth and evaluates it. The writer's preferred combination is explicit in both the introduction and conclusion.

How to study a model answer

Read the prompt first and write your own plan. Only then read the model. Identify its direct answer, the main job of each paragraph, and the connection between each example and claim.

Do not judge your response by whether it contains the same ideas. Ask whether your ideas answer the prompt and are explained convincingly. Rewrite one weak paragraph, then practise the same skill on a different topic.