Some businesses prohibit smoking in any of their offices. some government have banned smoking in all public places. Agree or disagree with this course of action? Give reasons for your opinion.
"Smoking is injurious to health" is one of the common phrase that is normally found printed on packets of cigarettes. This has certainly led to the belief that it is quite not healthy to smoke for long term. In fact, as a precaution it is been banned in many offices and public places. This decision is supported by some, whereas rejected by others. Personally, I believe that these place for public would be better without smoking, although the right to smoke or not should be individual one.
To begin with, everyone is aware that cigrattes contain hazardous chemicals and substances like nicotine, tar etc. These act as potential carcinogens for different organs of body particularly lungs. Moreover, many diseases are linked directly to smoke inhalation like lung cancer, Asthma, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease etc. As a matter of fact, not only the person who smoke is principally at risk of these mentioned diseases but others who are in vicinity can be affected aswell. This is defined as " passive smoking" and surely the measures prohibiting smoking in oranisations and public areas might reduce its risk to some extent.
Furthermore, it is human nature to get inspiration and strength when they visualise others openly performing certain actions. For instance, smoking in public can encourage others and it can be adopted as trending fashion symbol by some. However, if few secluded areas are provided to smokers then the growth seen in rate of smoking will be some how reduced. It will be then an individual opinion to adopt smoking as a habit , without being influential for others.
To conclude, I agree that smoking should not be allowed at public and business sectors. Alternatively, it is the responsibility of government to organise special corners for smokers where they can enjoy themselves in their own way. This might serve as a good step in limiting number of passive smokers as well.
Please assess my writing task 2
-
David.IELTS.Examiner
- IELTS Examiner
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 4:34 am
Re: Please assess my writing task 2
Hello!
Do you really think that it is the messages on the cigarette packages and NOT the well-publicised science that has 'led to the belief'?
In the introduction, you have clearly misunderstood the question! It's not about the right to smoke, but about the right to smoke where there are other people (i.e. in public).
Actually, there is little evidence that passive smoking is a cause of death. Studies 'suggest' that there 'may be' a link, but there 'may be' other variables involved. It's certainly not as clear as the case with primary smokers. One interesting fact is that estimates of deaths by second hand smoke continue to rise in developed countries, even though many of these countries have banned smoking in public buildings and smoking levels are decreasing.
But even if we take death from second hand smoking as a fact, you haven't developed the point. Besides, do we then g a step further and ban smoking at home?
In your conclusion, you do not say why the government should provide businesses with places for smokers to smoke. You also forget to mention the various kinds of public places, e.g. smoking in a park may not have the same affects as smoking in a public library.
Overall, a weak essay. Points are unclear and undeveloped. Grammar, though, is quite good, both in range and accuracy.
All the best,
David
Do you really think that it is the messages on the cigarette packages and NOT the well-publicised science that has 'led to the belief'?
In the introduction, you have clearly misunderstood the question! It's not about the right to smoke, but about the right to smoke where there are other people (i.e. in public).
Actually, there is little evidence that passive smoking is a cause of death. Studies 'suggest' that there 'may be' a link, but there 'may be' other variables involved. It's certainly not as clear as the case with primary smokers. One interesting fact is that estimates of deaths by second hand smoke continue to rise in developed countries, even though many of these countries have banned smoking in public buildings and smoking levels are decreasing.
But even if we take death from second hand smoking as a fact, you haven't developed the point. Besides, do we then g a step further and ban smoking at home?
In your conclusion, you do not say why the government should provide businesses with places for smokers to smoke. You also forget to mention the various kinds of public places, e.g. smoking in a park may not have the same affects as smoking in a public library.
Overall, a weak essay. Points are unclear and undeveloped. Grammar, though, is quite good, both in range and accuracy.
All the best,
David
Re: Please assess my writing task 2
fasah wrote:Some businesses prohibit smoking in any of their offices. some government have banned smoking in all public places. Agree or disagree with this course of action? Give reasons for your opinion.
"Smoking is injurious to health" is one of the common phrases that is normally found printed on packets of cigarettes. This has certainly led to the belief that it is not healthy to smoke long term. In fact, as a precaution, smoking has been banned in many offices and public places. This decision is supported by some and rejected by others. Personally, I believe that public spaces are better without smoking, although the right to smoke or not should be an individual's choice.
To begin with, everyone is aware that cigrattes contain hazardous chemicals and substances like nicotine, tar, etc. These act as potential carcinogens for different organs of the body, particularly the lungs. Moreover, many diseases are linked directly to smoke inhalation like lung cancer, Asthma, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease, etc. As a matter of fact, not only is the person who smokes principally at risk of these diseases, but others who are in the vicinity can be affected as well. This is defined as "passive smoking" and surely the measures prohibiting smoking in oranisations and public areas might reduce its risk to some extent.
Furthermore, it is human nature to gain inspiration and strength when we visualise others openly performing certain actions. For instance, smoking in public can encourage others and it can be adopted as a trending fashion symbol by some. However, if only a few secluded areas are provided to smokers, then the growth rate of smoking will be somehow reduced. It will then be an individual's choice to adopt smoking as a habit without being influenced by others.
To conclude, I agree that smoking should not be allowed in public and business sectors. Alternatively, it is the responsibility of the government to organise special areas for smokers where they can enjoy themselves in their own way. This might serve as a good step in limiting the number of passive smokers as well.