More and More People in the City live in Homes with no Outdoor Areas IELTS Writing Task 2

More and More People in the City live in Homes with no Outdoor Areas IELTS Writing Task 2 consists of three sample answers provided below. The task requires the candidates to provide a tentative and argumentative answer to the question. The sample answers comprise two parts: Introduction and body. The introduction is a brief description of the topic. The body contains argumentative statements and tentative answers to support the test-taker's perspective.
IELTS writing task 2 evaluates candidates based on the knowledge and views they have expressed. The areas that candidates are assessed on are grammar, vocabulary, and style. IELTS writing score is marked based on band scores. The band scores range from 0 to 9. Since the topics are very diverse, candidates must go through IELTS Writing practice papers to become familiar with a lot of topics.

Check: Get 10 Free Sample Papers
Check: Register for IELTS Coaching - Join for Free Trial Class Now

Topic: More and more people in the city live in homes with small spaces or no outdoor areas. Do you think it is a negative or positive development?

Model Answer 1

The globe has experienced a paradigm shift in migration in this era of globalization, with more rural residents becoming city dwellers these days. From antiquity to the present, choosing where to live has been a major preoccupation. Although urbanization is the watchword of the day, few people feel that it is the best location to flourish, while others prefer rural living. Let us compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of living in a city and in the countryside.

Recent technological developments have aided urban living in a variety of ways. Cities have more obvious modes of transportation and communication than villages. In addition, urban industries and businesses provide a wealth of chances for professionals and entrepreneurs. Younger generations prefer to live in the city, where they may be surrounded by luxury, rather than in the countryside. Another significant factor to consider in this regard is the recent shift in the medical profession; many of these modern facilities are only available in urban areas. In addition to all of this, the city has evolved into a social hub for the wealthy and privileged, allowing one to have the luxury of knowing them. Celebrities and politicians, for example, are more likely to be found at social clubs or parties than at a country gathering.

As previously said, there are several reasons for one's choosing to live in a city rather than a village in today's world; nevertheless, one of them that deserves special attention is the level of education that a city provides. Education is said to liberate people from societal stigmas. In comparison to the rural side, metropolitan living is always associated with a well-organized and qualified educational system. When compared to a hamlet, a city would be the preferred location for finding efficient schools, universities, and research centers.

In the end, both urban and rural habitation have their advantages and disadvantages; however, choosing a place to live should be prioritized based on individual requirements. An ideal example would be an IT professional who should become a part of a city for his career advancement, whereas a farmer would fit in a rural sector for his livelihood. I've lived in a city since I was a youngster, and I'd like to continue in the same boat for the rest of my life.

Read More IELTS Writing Related Articles

Check: IELTS Actual Test ebooks Combo

Model Answer 2: 

To accommodate increasing urban populations, many cities are extending higher today. This, in my opinion, is a better option than supporting urban development since it may help conserve surrounding land for other uses.

Some say that towering cities provide problems to residents and that a more spread-out metropolis provides a higher quality of life. Because of the consequences of overpopulation on sanitation, safety, and traffic conditions, large metropolitan places with many towering apartment buildings, such as New York City or Shanghai, are notoriously difficult to live in.

Decentralized cities, on the other hand, such as Los Angeles and Nashville, allow for the creation of unique local neighborhoods, greater room for residential buildings, and a reduction in the aforementioned urban difficulties. Individuals who live in these places frequently report higher levels of happiness, and many "transplants" relocate to these cities because of the higher living standards.

Those in favor of taller structures, on the other hand, can reasonably point to the benefits to the surrounding region. It is frequently difficult to control the expansion of economically significant cities, which can result in huge urban sprawl, as is the situation in the areas around Mexico City and Tokyo. The surrounding region can be maintained or repurposed by adding more buildings. National parks can be created from pristine natural areas. If the city requires additional food to feed its people, nearby farms with quick delivery periods may be available. This undeveloped area may be developed into peaceful suburban villages, allowing families to raise a family outside of the city while earning a high salary and having easy access to the cultural amenities of big cities. To summarise, horizontal cities provide certain benefits to residents, but higher cities make more sense in today's environment. Nonetheless, striking a balance and providing excellent infrastructure to minimize the difficulties created by expanding urban populations is critical.

Model Answer 3:

Many people in metropolitan settings are said to prefer small-space living without access to the outdoors. Personally, I feel that this inclination has both advantages and disadvantages.

Living in a tiny place has a number of financial benefits. Mass migrations from rural regions to megacities have increased population density in many nations, resulting in high housing prices. As a result, renting tiny flats rather than houses with customized outside spaces would be more cost-effective for new inhabitants, particularly those with low incomes.

A modest apartment in Da Nang, for example, can cost approximately 70,000 dollars, but a moderate-sized house with open space costs at least 200,000 dollars. Furthermore, individuals who live in tiny apartments do not need to spend a lot of money on appliances or house upkeep, allowing them to save a little extra money each month. Despite the advantages listed above, I feel that minor accommodations might cause residents to suffer. For starters, living in this sort of environment can lead to a loss of privacy, which can have a detrimental impact on an individual's independence.

For example, because I share a tight flat in a high-rise building with my sister and uncle, it's tough for me to spend time alone. Second, outside areas such as front yards are great for exercising and planning family activities like barbeque parties. People who live in a residence with no open areas are less likely to engage in such activities, leading to a sedentary lifestyle. To sum up, I believe that living in tiny houses or flats with little open space has both positive and negative consequences.