IELTS Writing Task 2 essay.

Some people enjoy change, and they look forward to new experiences. Others like their lives to stay the same.  Compare the two approaches and explain your preference.


Variety is the spice of life. Experiences and changes in life add colour and flavour to life. It is rightly said that, a rolling stone gathers no moss. Inevitable changes must be allowed in our life to keep us agile and agreeable in this world.
We live in the midst of different types of people. Some innovative people always accept the new trends and change their lifestyles accordingly. They always update themselves and keep pace with the moving world. Their inquisitiveness and flexibility make their life easy and gay. Human beings are easily fed up with the tight packed schedules and routine works. Some others are there, who do not budge an inch from their daily routine. No changes are welcome. They feel satisfied when their pre-planned and set duties are fulfilled. They do not expect any miracles in their lives. Usually, aged people stay behind while the youngsters leap towards new experiences.
However, I think that, people should take risks and welcome changes in their lives. A change of work, workplace, or lifestyle would definitely keep them enthusiastic and probing. All the gimmicks of life would be known to them which inturn would keep them cautious, and enable them to tackle any problematic situation in their daily lives. Those who do not welcome any change would be fragile and may collapse at slight difficulties. New experiences give an insight into life, whereas, a life without change is always dull and prejudiced.
To sum up, enthusiastic and innovative people are the assets of any nation. They ensure the bright future and the indentity of the nation of which they are known. We should have fantastic dreams and should strive hard to make them come true. For that, changes are to be welcomed with open arms.
(292 words)


IELTS Writing Task 2 essay.

Some people strongly oppose euthanasia, while some others speak in favour of its legal approval.  Discuss both the arguements and arrive at a conclusion of your own.


It is one of the most contentious questions whether the practice of mercifully ending a person’s life should be allowed legally or not, so as to release him from an uncurable disease, unbearable pain or undignified death. There are arguments supporting both sides.
Those who oppose euthanasia argue that it is a violation of God’s gift of life, and therefore, no one has the right to end anybody’s life. Thus, they put forth ethical questions for physicians and other health-care providers. Permitting doctors to painlessly put an individual to death includes a lot of risks. For example, there may be a misappropriation of power over life and death which may give rise to a great threat to the whole mankind. Hence they maintain their opinion that the practice of killing causes more harm than benefit.
On the contrary, the proponents emphasise the primary objective of health-care providers is ensuring relief from torment. To epitomize, physicians can bring relief to a patient suffering from fatal diseases like cancer and AIDS when conditions become overwhelmingly burdensome for a person and pain management is not possible for him. In addition, they claim that under principles of individual liberty, every individual has a legal right to die as they choose.
In short, the power to take away life will certainly impose the risk of misusing them and will reach an irrepressible state. At the same time, assisting a traumatic person to escape from the onerous pain seems to be an act of magnanimity. I feel help is to be offered to relieve pain through death, and the dangers behind it can be kept at a minimum by implementing proper legal safeguards.
(about 270 words)