IELTS Writing Task 2/ Essay Topics with sample answer.

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample 9 - Many office authorities impose restriction on smoking within the offices premises

Details
Last Updated: Wednesday, 28 September 2016 14:26
Written by IELTS Mentor
Hits: 93185

IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay:

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Present a written argument to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of the following topic:

Many office authorities impose a restriction on smoking within the office premises. Some governments have even banned smoking in all public places. This is a good idea but it takes away some of our freedom.

What are your opinions on this?

Use your own knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.

You should write at least 250 words.

Model Answer 1:
(Agreement: Smoking should be banned in office premises and public places)
There is no scope of argument that cigarette smoking is harmful both for the smoker and people around him/her. Cigarette smoking has two major effects on non-smokers-injurious passive smoking and smoking display that has an invitational or persuasive effect on non-smokers. I believe banning smoking in public places and offices not only will discourage smoking but will also keep the smoking practice out of site, though it might apparently look like transgress into smoker’s freedom. But I believe any harmful activity of a particular person or group of people can not be a definition of freedom. If smoking right in any place is a definition of freedom then why not other drugs? In m opinion, every public place including office must be smoking free.     

There are several reasons that government and private authorities are being strict on smoking in offices and even public places. Firstly, this is an accepted fact that smoking is injurious and deadly to health in several ways. Secondly, smoking causes health hazards to non-smokers who inhale smoke passively from the smokers. Thirdly, smoking has a strong psychologically influence on others, particularly on children and young who learns from their elderly. Fourthly, in many countries, the cost of health care and insurance has gone up due to smoking related illnesses. So health authorities and governments are trying to have been seen that due to the restrictions, the habit of smoking is on a decline among office goers.

Though non-smokers think that restricting smoking in offices and public places is a good idea, smokers often view it as an intervention into their right. Smokers argue that cigarette smoking has a direct relation to their workplace performance, though passive smoking can cause objections from colleagues. But considering the harm of smoking it should be banned.

Though pressure groups such as tobacco companies may discourage restrictions on smoking, since the advantages of ban outweigh the disadvantages, mass public support such bans. Moreover, offices have the right to regulate staff behaviour and activities and governments too can ban smoking in public places for a greater societal benefit.

In conclusion, restricting smoking in workplaces and in public is a good idea. I can also understand the opinion of smokers that banning smoking in such places limits their work speed but I believe with little practice and determination they can overcome it. So I strongly support the idea of prohibiting smoking in any public place including the office premises.  

(Approximately 404 words)
(This model answer has been prepared by the site developer. However, please note that this is just one example out of many possible answers.)
 
N.B: You should be able to pick up different points from this essay and organise your answer in your own style.
 
Model Answer 2:
(Disagreement: Smoking should NOT be banned in office premises and public places)
Without any double smoking is harmful to smokers and the debate whether it should be banned in office premises and in public places came in light mostly because it harms the passive smokers as well. But some consideration should be done before thoroughly banning it from the office premises and public places. In my opinion, there is no reason for the advocacy in favour of smoking but totally banning it in office premises and public places would not be a good solution.

First of all, if a government only bans the smoking in public places and allows the production, marketing and selling of cigarettes in the country that point out a question if the government at all wants to ban the cigarettes. Why would not a government restrict the selling of cigars but would only refrain the smokers from having it? Rather government should ban this vile product in the whole country so that people no longer have the option to smoke. A smoker would naturally smoke as s/he gets addicted to the nicotine of a cigarette. Allowing them to purchase it and then not to smoke it is kind of ridiculous idea.

Secondly, many offices restrict smoking in office premises and this is also a controversial idea. Why hire smokers when you have such a strict restriction on smoking? Rather those offices should update their hiring policy and should not hire smokers as many educational and religious organisations do. Smoking in no way acceptable but restricting this only in office premises is in a way allowing the employees to go outside and harm some other people rather than the office staffs. Instead of this, the offices can either arrange a separate smoking zone with proper ventilation facility or allow the smokers to smoke there or should hire non-smokers.

In conclusion, the cigarettes should be restricted in the production and sales level but not in the way of stealing peoples’ freedom by restricting them in particular places while letting them easily purchase them. Where is the good will when a government freely allows the product, distribution and selling of tobacco and collects taxes from the tobacco companies and at the same time restrict smoking to show that they are doing well for people?
 
(This model answer has been prepared by the site developer. However, please note that this is just one example out of many possible answers.)
 

Model Answer 3:
Use of tobacco products has become popular after the industrial revolution. Cigarettes are so cheaply available that people do not bother to think about it before lighting one in every minute. Society is engaged in very long debate, whether smoking should be banned completely in public places or not. Some argue that it would encroachment to one's freedom, while others support this idea. I think smokers should be allowed to smoke only in designated areas away from the public.

According to world health organisation, smoking is biggest cause of oral and lung cancer. Even second-hand smokers, people who inhale smoke releases by smokers, are equally prone to the disease. Therefore, looking at this risk, smokers and non-smokers should be segregated. In countries like the United States of America, designated smoking areas are built and smoking in public places is banned and fines are imposed if anyone is found using cigarettes in public place.

While it may be easy to argue that banning smoking is intruding to one's freedom. But forcing one's smoke to other non-smokers is even a bigger crime. Advocates, who fight for the ban of smoking, ask that why should an innocent bystander suffer from the smoke released by smokers? Therefore, it can easily be concluded that banning smoking is public place is not attached to freedom; it is rather imposing the right of freedom.
 
With above points, in conclusion, it can be concluded that with alternative options for smoking location made available, smoking can be banned at all public location without creating any controversy.

( Written by  Ramanuj )

 
Model Answer 4:
'Smoking is injurious to health' is a widely known advice, written on all the cigarettes packets to continuously remind the smoker of the ill-effects of smoking on health. Considering the health of smokers, governments and organisations are taking steps to limit people from smoking inside office premises. In my opinion, this is a good move by the authorities; however, some people argue that such initiatives will curb our freedom.
 
Although our constitution allows one to do whatever one wants to do but if any of his action involves impacting the health of others, then such rights need to be limited. Medical science has proved that Smoking not only impact the well-being of the person who is actively involved in smoking but also of the person, passively inhaling the smoke.
 
Despite the impact of smoking on the health of other people, some people think that prohibiting one from smoking in the place of his choice, governments and organisation are curbing freedom of the people. This may sound true if thought in terms of the right to freedom but if one morally considers the bad effect of smoking on the other people who do not even touch cigarettes, this no more feels apt to exercise such rights. One must exercise his rights as long as it does not impact others.
 
To summarise, smoking not only affects the health of active smoker but also degrades the immunity of passive smoker. Therefore one must not smoke in places with public. We must exercise our right for only for the benefit of us as a whole. Further, the move for restricting smoking in public places should not be seen from the perspective of curbing freedom but must be supported for everybody's good.
 
( Written by  - Riya Nagpal )
Model Answer 5:
It is a fact that a lot of commercial offices have set strict regulations regarding to smoking within the buildings. And even in some countries, governments have restricted their residents from smoking in public areas. Some people think that the regulation is a positive thing, but others feel that it has taken away some of the human's right.
 
To begin with, it is true that restricting people from smoking in public places is an unfavourable regulation for smokers. In the perspective of smokers, the regulation has taken away some of their rights, whereas everyone has the right to do anything that individual prefer to do, and one of them is to smoke in public areas. They believe that cigarette would only be harmful to the smoker, and it would not have any negative effect to others.
 
On the other hand, it is common that most office buildings are prohibiting their people from smoking inside the buildings. And many government authorities have been banning their citizens from smoking in public areas. These strict regulations have been set based on several reasons. Firstly, it is a fact that smoking causes a serious or fatal threat to the smokers themselves. There have been cases, where active smokers have a heart attack or lung cancer due to smoking. Secondly, it is also proven that the smoke is also dangerous for the passive smokers. It has been reported that some women have had problems with their pregnancy due to inhaling the smoke.
 
In conclusion, although it might seem to be unfair for the active smoker, but setting restriction on smoking in public and commercial areas is something positive. Smoking is not only threatening for the smokers, but it could also give a negative impact to the passive smokers as well.
 
( Written by  - Darwin Lesmana )
 
Model Answer 6:
Smoking is proven to be deleterious not only for the smokers but it also puts the negative impact on passive smokers’ health. The Government has put the ban on smoking  in the public places, however, many companies are adopting the similar footsteps and hence banning it in the offices. Apropos to this, I support what many Governments and the office authorities have done. Though it might seem a violation of freedom to some extent, the positive aspects of banning free-smoking are far greater and hence this movement should be welcomed, according to me.  

There are numerous reasons why smoking should be restricted in the offices and in similar places where people meet or work together. To begin with, many non-smokers work in an office or gather in a train station, so the smoke of cigarette is pernicious and irritating for them. Besides, if the smoking is allowed inside the office or in public places like an auditorium, then the passive smokers will suffer from same ailments, as smokers will. Finally, an office is a hub of many professionals and allowing smokers to smoke freely would be the violation of non-smokers’ freedom in one hand and unprofessional in another hand. To continue it, employees spend most of their time in their workplaces and if smoking is banned there, then willingly and unwillingly many of them will stop smoking. In a long run, it is going to give them the benefit, as they will understand that it is not such a hard nut to crack for them to quit smoking. In addition, it will also save the time which is spent for smoking by the employees; instead, they will devote that time doing the office work. The same argument is valid for banning the smoking in the public places as well. Ultimately the banning should be implemented to save the non-smokers, smokers and the environment.

However, another aspect of this statement also deserves the attention. To start with, as the people who are in the habit of smoking feels disturbed and interrupted on banning the smoking in the offices and other public places. They feel that it affects their performance and thus they have the right to smoke as capable adults. I would like to opine that, the banning should not be implemented all of a sudden and the smokers should be given the chance to quit smoking before banning it in offices and in public places.  

In conclusion, not a single positive aspect of smoking is proven so far while there are hundreds of detrimental effects are already scientifically proven. Thus banning something in public places which will bring benefits should be cordially welcomed.
 
( by - Arora)
 
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rating 4.13 (16 Votes)

RSS
Sibghat Ullah
Smoking is injurious not just to smokers but it is equally pernicious for others around them. Due to this fact, a myriad of organizations has put an outright ban on smoking in office areas and a similar trend is followed by many government authorities, who have declared all public areas and spaces smoking-free zones. Though these restrictions seem to take away some personal freedom, its overwhelmingly negative implications justify its ban, in my opinion.

To begin with, everyone has the right and freedom to make independent decisions about the affairs of life. However, any particular action or personal choice of the person must not become a cause of inconvenience to others. The habit of smoking is one vivid example of this, where active smokers not just damage their health but the toxic elements of cigarettes cause harm to passive smokers.

This negative externality associated with cigarettes has forced the organizations to impose a ban on smoking in office premises, as it hampers the health of all people who share the same premises. Likewise, government enactment of penalty or fines on people smoking in public spaces derived from the same principle that the right of one person should not override the collective rights of many people.

To resolve this problem, separate designated areas can be made for smokers to satisfy their needs without causing a nuisance for others. For instance, smoking openly is prohibited at the airports but smoking areas are made for the convenience of all passengers.

In conclusion, smokers and non-smokers both have rights which need to be protected and guaranteed, but no action of one party can be legalized which tramples the rights of another party. And smoking should be limited to designated areas where non-smokers are safe from its harmful effects. The prohibition of smoking in public areas and offices is just and does not infringe on the right of any individual, it is for the best of all people.
Sewak Singh
The essay written by Arora is a perfect opinion essay. Thanks, Arora for such a nice essay.
Saba
Can we give a neutral opinion and ponder on both sides? For example, it should not be banned, and should not be allowed in public place as well.
Barbara
Thank you for this sample essay.
Saleel
Good website. Really appreciate your work !!! One suggestion could be to give approximate band score for all sample essays and this would definitely help us to evaluate and improvise ourselves to align with the IELTS standards.
Roni
Essay Topic: Many office authorities impose a restriction on smoking within the office premises. Some governments have even banned smoking in all public places. This is a good idea but it takes away some of our freedom.What are your opinions on this? Answer: Smoking has never been good to one's health. Scientists and researchers could not find a single benefit of smoking to our physical or mental health. On the contrary, the damages smoking causes are uncountable and unimaginable! In my opinion, cigarette smoking in public places should be totally banned even if this means the violation of people's freedom to some extent.Smoking is the leading cause of respiratory diseases among the people in all around the world. According to the latest survey from the Department of Health, 80 percent of patients' lung disease is caused by smoking tobacco. The study also shows that second-hand smokers, especially children, are more affected when they are within a close proximity of a smoker. Lung cancers, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and asthma are just a few diseases common among smokers. A huge budget is spent to treat people who suffer from these diseases and smoking is the leading cause of these illnesses. Considering the devastating outcome of smoking, it should be banned in offices, hospitals, schools and in any public place.Furthermore, cigarette smoking is also addictive. It is proven that people who smoke will hardly get rid of this bad vice. The tend to increase their salivation if they cannot take several tobacco puffs. Some became active and they can concentrate well on their job, only after they smoke. Some even need professional consultancy hard will for quitting smoking. Young people often try to mimic people who they like and thus allowing people to smoke in public would increase the young smokers' number in the long run. Another reason for banning smoking in public places is that it will cause additional garbage from the cigarette butts and cigarette packs. Though some people argue that not allowing smokers to smoke in office premises or in other public places is a violation of personal freedom, I do not see any justification for this claim.
Prakash
I want to know different ways of starting IELTS essay 'Introduction' and 'Conclusion'. Please help me.
Reena Nayyar
I want to improve my writing skill. Please advise me.
Sha
Thanks indeed, It's a great help.
Alex
Nice site! I really like it.
IELTS Mentor
Thanks Maria for your inspiring and motivating comment.
Maria
Great website for IELTS. Thumbs up!!!