2025 IELTS Writing Task 2 Questions & IELTS Band 9 Answers for Top Scores

Some people think that older people should continue working after retirement age, while others believe they should enjoy their retirement. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

There is debate over whether older individuals should remain in the workforce after reaching retirement or fully embrace their retirement years. Supporters of continued employment argue that many seniors remain energetic and experienced, contributing meaningfully to society, while opponents maintain that retirement is a well-deserved period for rest and personal pursuits. I believe that although staying active can be beneficial, retirees should have the freedom to enjoy their later years without pressure to work.

On one hand, continuing to work can provide older adults with a sense of purpose and financial security. Many retirees possess invaluable expertise that younger colleagues lack, and their involvement can enhance productivity and mentoring within organizations. Additionally, employment helps seniors maintain social connections and mental engagement, which are crucial for overall well-being. Therefore, remaining professionally active can be both fulfilling and beneficial to society.

On the other hand, retirement offers a chance to focus on personal interests, family, and health. After decades of work, many people deserve time for relaxation and pursuing hobbies that were previously neglected. Forcing or expecting seniors to work can lead to stress and fatigue, undermining the quality of life that retirement is meant to provide. In this sense, stepping away from professional duties allows individuals to enjoy freedom and rejuvenation.

In conclusion, working beyond retirement age can be valuable for those who wish to stay active, but it should never be obligatory. A balance between choice and well-being is essential. Ultimately, I believe that retirees should have the right to enjoy their retirement while remaining engaged in society in ways they find meaningful.

Students should focus on learning in the classroom rather than show their status by wearing fashionable clothes. Therefore, all students have to wear school uniforms. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Many people argue that students should concentrate on their studies rather than on their appearance, and for this reason school uniforms are considered essential. While some claim that allowing fashionable clothing fosters individuality and self-expression, others maintain that uniforms encourage discipline and equality. I strongly agree with the latter view, as the advantages of unity and reduced distractions outweigh the drawbacks.

Firstly, uniforms can create a more focused and balanced learning environment. When every student dresses in the same manner, economic or social differences are less visible, which helps reduce jealousy and peer pressure. This equality allows learners to pay more attention to academic tasks rather than clothing choices. Moreover, a shared dress code instils discipline and a sense of belonging, both of which contribute positively to school culture.

Conversely, some argue that personal style should be respected, since clothing may reflect identity and creativity. It is true that fashion can help young people express confidence and individuality. However, this benefit is limited in an academic context, where the primary aim is knowledge acquisition and skill development. Allowing fashion to dominate in classrooms risks turning education into a stage for competition rather than collaboration.

In conclusion, while personal expression has value, the school environment should prioritise learning above all else. Uniforms reduce unnecessary distractions, promote fairness, and strengthen collective spirit. Therefore, I firmly support the view that all students should wear uniforms.

Some people think that news media should focus only on positive events, while others believe negative news is more important. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some argue that news outlets should highlight only uplifting and inspiring stories, while others claim that negative events deserve more attention. Supporters of the first view believe the media shapes public mood and should therefore spread optimism, whereas their opponents emphasise the necessity of reporting tragedies, conflicts, and social issues. In my opinion, although constant negativity can be harmful, ignoring unpleasant realities would be far more dangerous, since society cannot solve problems it refuses to acknowledge.

On the one hand, positive coverage is said to encourage hope, motivation, and social unity. When audiences are exposed to stories of innovation, kindness, or achievement, they may feel more engaged in their communities and more confident about the future. A constant stream of success stories can also counterbalance the stress and anxiety of daily life. Proponents therefore argue that uplifting news contributes to emotional stability and collective progress.

On the other hand, focusing only on cheerful content risks creating a distorted picture of reality. Crime, corruption, and environmental disasters, for instance, demand urgent attention and cannot be ignored for the sake of comfort. By reporting on such issues, journalists hold governments and corporations accountable and alert citizens to threats that require action. Without this exposure, societies would remain blind to pressing challenges and incapable of meaningful change.

In conclusion, while positive stories may enhance public morale, negative reporting ensures awareness and accountability. A responsible media should strike a balance, but ultimately it must not shy away from uncomfortable truths. Therefore, I firmly believe that negative news, though unsettling, plays the more crucial role in informing and protecting society.