IELTS General Training Writing practice

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to complain about a desk that I ordered from your website on 2 March (order number OK-48213). It was delivered last Thursday, a week later than the date I was originally given.

Unfortunately, when I unpacked the desk, I found that one of the legs was cracked and there was a deep scratch across the middle of the top. The box was also badly damaged, so I believe the problem happened during delivery rather than in my home. I have taken photographs of the damage, which I can send you if necessary. In addition, two of the screws listed in the assembly instructions were missing, so I could not have put the desk together even if it had been in perfect condition.

I would be grateful if you could arrange for the damaged desk to be collected and replaced as soon as possible. If a replacement cannot be delivered within two weeks, I would prefer a full refund, including the delivery charge.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

Daniel Moreau

Dear Mrs Lindqvist,

My name is Tomás and I live at number 14, two doors down from you. I hope you don't mind me writing, as we have only spoken a few times in the street.

I am going to be away from 3 to 17 June, because my company is sending me on a training course in another city. As I live alone, I was wondering whether you might be able to help me with a couple of things while I am gone.

My main worry is my post, which tends to pile up quickly, so I would be very grateful if you could collect it every few days. If it is not too much trouble, could you also water the plants on my balcony once or twice a week? I would leave you a spare key and a watering can by the door.

Of course, I would be happy to do the same for you whenever you go away, and I will bring you something nice back from my trip. Please feel free to knock on my door or leave a note if you have any questions.

Kind regards,

Tomás Ferreira

Dear Hannah,

Thanks so much for inviting me to your housewarming party on the 21st. I'm really pleased you've finally found a place with a garden – I know you've been looking for ages!

Unfortunately, I won't be able to make it. My brother is getting married that weekend, and I've promised to help with the preparations, so I'll be at my parents' house from Thursday until Sunday evening. I'm really sorry, because it sounds like it's going to be a great evening and I'd have loved to see everyone again.

Could we meet up soon afterwards instead? I'm free most evenings the following week, so how about I come round one day and you give me a proper tour? I'll bring dinner – maybe that Thai curry you liked so much last time. Or, if you'd rather go out, there's a new café near the station that I've been wanting to try.

Let me know what works for you, and have a brilliant party!

Love,

Inès

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to draw your attention to a problem in Millbrook Park, which is next to the housing estate where I live.

The park is very popular with local residents. I walk through it every weekday on my way to and from the station, and at weekends my children play on the grass and in the small playground near the main gate. Many people also use the path along the river for jogging and walking their dogs.

However, for the past two months most of the lights along this path have not been working. In winter it is completely dark by five o'clock, so the path is now unsafe for anyone coming home from work. Last week an elderly neighbour tripped over a tree root and hurt her wrist, and several parents have told me that they no longer let their teenagers walk home that way.

I would therefore ask the council to repair the lights as soon as possible. It would also be helpful if the path could be checked for other hazards, such as roots and loose stones.

Yours faithfully,

Rebecca Osei

Online courses allow students to learn without attending a classroom. This can make education easier to access, especially for people with jobs or family commitments. However, studying away from a college can also make it harder to stay focused and to communicate with other learners.

One main advantage is the time and money saved on travel. A student who lives far from a college can use the time normally spent on a bus to complete an assignment, and they also avoid the cost of daily tickets. Recorded lessons offer another benefit, because students can watch them when they are free. For example, someone with an evening job could watch a lecture in the morning and pause it to take notes. This flexibility is particularly useful for students who cannot follow a fixed timetable, although live online classes still require attendance at set times.

A disadvantage is that learners need to manage their own attention. At home, messages, games or family activities may interrupt a lesson, and without a teacher nearby, a student might put off difficult work until an assignment is due. Online study can also reduce informal contact with classmates. A learner watching recordings alone cannot simply turn to the person sitting beside them and ask for help. Discussion groups and regular online meetings can reduce this problem, but students must make an effort to join them.

In conclusion, online education can reduce travel costs and fit around work, but it also demands self-discipline and planned communication. It is therefore most useful when learners have a suitable place to study and the course offers regular opportunities to ask questions.

When deciding between public transport and road expansion, cities should usually give priority to public transport. Better services can widen access to work and reduce dependence on cars, although investment must deal with the reasons why people currently avoid buses or trains.

The strongest argument is access. Residents who cannot afford a car or are unable to drive still need reliable routes to workplaces, colleges and essential services. Increasing frequency can be particularly valuable where a missed bus means a long wait. For instance, a worker finishing a late shift may be able to use a bus if services continue beyond normal office hours, whereas simply adding vehicles to an already frequent daytime route would do less for that worker. Spending should therefore target gaps in coverage and operating hours.

Public transport may also relieve congestion, but only if it offers a practical alternative to driving. A bus carrying fifty passengers uses road space far more efficiently than the same people travelling in separate cars. However, an unreliable bus stuck in traffic is unlikely to attract regular drivers, so dedicated bus lanes and dependable connections may be needed alongside extra services. These improvements give travellers a reason to change their habits rather than merely asking them to do so.

Spending on roads remains necessary for maintenance, emergency vehicles and deliveries, and a particular bottleneck may justify a limited expansion. Nevertheless, widening roads throughout a city is costly and takes space that could be used for homes or footpaths, without solving the lack of alternatives to driving.

Overall, I largely agree that public transport deserves more money than new roads, provided that essential road maintenance is protected. The aim should be reliable access for as many residents as possible, rather than expanding either network without considering how it will be used.

One response to plastic waste is to make disposable products more expensive; another is to provide convenient substitutes. Higher prices can discourage wasteful purchases, but in my view affordable alternatives should come first, with charges used selectively once shoppers have a genuine choice.

Supporters of higher prices argue that people often use disposable plastic because its cost is barely noticeable. A separate charge makes that cost visible and may encourage people to reuse a bag or container they already own. This can be effective where avoiding the charge requires only a small change in habit. However, charging for essential packaging is less convincing when shoppers cannot buy the product in any other form. In that situation, the policy raises household costs without necessarily reducing plastic use.

Better alternatives address this weakness by making a different behaviour possible. A refill station, for example, allows customers to reuse a bottle instead of buying a new one each time. Its success still depends on practical details: it must be conveniently located, competitively priced and easy to use. An environmentally attractive option that requires an extra journey or costs considerably more is unlikely to become a routine choice for most people.

These points suggest a sequence rather than a choice between two separate policies. Businesses and public authorities could first improve access to reliable substitutes, and then introduce targeted charges for avoidable disposable products. This would keep the incentive created by prices while reducing the burden on people whose options are limited. It would also make the purpose of the charge easier to explain.

Overall, higher prices have a useful supporting role, but they cannot make up for a lack of alternatives. Priority should go to making reuse practical, with financial incentives reinforcing that change rather than replacing it.

Employers should make physical activity easier during the working day, especially for staff who sit at a desk for long periods. However, encouragement is only valuable when employees have the time and freedom to take part; an exercise scheme that ignores working conditions risks becoming yet another demand on them.

The most useful measures remove practical barriers. Many staff would like to move more but feel unable to leave their desks while colleagues remain visibly busy. A clearly permitted activity break, supported by managers who respect it, can solve that problem. For example, allowing a team to take a short walk during an existing break offers a simple option that requires no equipment or sporting ability. The point of the example is not that walking suits everyone, but that the employer makes a manageable activity compatible with ordinary work.

That opportunity should not become a test of commitment. Employees differ in health, mobility and personal preferences, and they should not have to explain private circumstances in order to opt out. Participation must therefore remain voluntary, with an ordinary rest break as an equally acceptable choice. Team competitions or public rankings of who exercises most would undermine this principle if they made non-participants feel less valued.

Workload matters just as much. Permission to exercise offers little benefit if an employee must then work through lunch to finish the same tasks. Managers need to consider staffing and deadlines so that the break is genuinely available. This may be less visible than launching a fitness challenge, but it decides whether the policy actually changes employees' working day.

I therefore agree that employers should encourage activity, as long as this means widening choice and removing barriers. Success should mean that staff can take a suitable activity break without any penalty, rather than that everyone joins the same programme.

Working from home should be a normal right for office employees whose duties allow it, rather than a special favour. I would nevertheless distinguish a default from a requirement: staff should keep access to a workplace, and employers should be able to ask for shared attendance for particular tasks.

For work that depends on long periods of individual concentration, compulsory daily attendance can impose costs without improving the result. An analyst writing a report may gain little from commuting only to spend the day working alone at a desk. Allowing that work to be done remotely gives the employee more control over interruptions and removes unnecessary travel. The case rests on the nature of the task, however, not on an assumption that every home is quieter or better equipped than an office. Access to a suitable workplace must therefore remain available.

The strongest objection concerns activities in which colleagues need to solve problems together. A new team planning a project, for example, may have to revise several connected decisions quickly. Working in the same room can reduce the effort of arranging separate conversations and help newcomers understand how the team works. This supports regular occasions for working together; it does not show that everyone needs to attend every day regardless of their duties.

A workable policy would therefore give teams flexibility by default, together with a clear process for deciding when presence is useful. Managers should explain the purpose of shared days and judge employees by the work they complete, rather than treating visible attendance as evidence of productivity. Employees should also be able to work from the office without having to prove that their home is unsuitable.

I therefore largely agree that remote work should be the normal arrangement, with clear exceptions. Its value lies in matching working arrangements to tasks and circumstances, while keeping the cooperation that some activities require.

A council's culture budget should mainly support activities that residents can take part in regularly, while leaving room for larger events that offer a clear public benefit. In my view, the choice should depend on what each type of activity makes possible, rather than on audience size or neighbourhood scale alone.

Large events can give residents experiences that small groups cannot easily provide. A free festival might bring a professional performance to people who would otherwise face ticket and travel costs, while attracting audiences from across the town. The fact that it lasts only a weekend does not cancel out that benefit. At the same time, a high attendance figure says little about which residents were left out, or whether the event took money from more valuable year-round activities. The real question is what extra access the spending creates.

Regular neighbourhood activities offer a different advantage: participation can deepen over time. In a weekly music workshop, residents may progress from attending sessions to helping to organise them, developing both skills and friendships through repeated contact. That continuity is a strong reason to protect a basic level of local funding. Being small, however, does not guarantee being open to everyone. An established group can become closed to newcomers, so funded programmes should show how new people can join and stay involved.

I would therefore secure funding for accessible, ongoing activities before paying for a limited programme of larger events. Each proposed event should explain what audience or cultural opportunity it adds, rather than competing with local groups only on the number of people it attracts. Reviewing who takes part, and who does not, would help councils make this comparison fairly.

This approach gives neighbourhood activities priority because of their continuity, while keeping a justified place for major events. It recognises that the two make different contributions and asks both to show their value to the public.