Do you want to improve your writing? Try our new evaluation service and get detailed feedback.
Check Your Text it's free

Many office authorities impose a restriction on smoking within the office premises. Some governments have even banned smoking in all public places. This is a good idea but it takes away some of our freedom. What are your opinions on this? v.1

Many office authorities impose a restriction on smoking within the office premises. Some governments have even banned smoking in all public places. This is a good idea but it takes away some of our freedom. What are your opinions on this? v. 1
A majority of work places enforce a strict guideline within their compound. The elected state in several areas has also prohibited smoking at private places. This happens to be a great idea but I strongly disagree that a step like this would reduce the right to practice one's freedom. This essay will focus on highlighting the causes to support my opinion. The primary two reasons are smoking, being a choice and the damage incurred by passive smokers. Firstly, to smoke or not is an individual's personal decision. Just because anyone wants to smoke, it does not mean that the other has to bear the brunt of it. When a person is smoking in office or any other public place, everyone around can smell it; not everyone is comfortable with the odor that is emitted. Therefore, if the question is based on someone's personal approach, then every single person's thought who happen to be affected by it, need to be considered. For example, a recent study by Columbia University shows that 55% of the working population agree that they would prefer working in an office which does not allow smoking. Secondly, all public places are accessible to everyone. Some people might be allergic to the smoke. If the bureaucracy does not make a law to curb smoking. Smokers can start smoking at all the available areas which are also in turn, open to the entire population and hence, resulting in the inconenience for non smokers. For example, an independent survey revealed, that a staggering 72% of families prefer going to the restaurant that does not admit smokers. Thus, re-iterating the fact that majority of the people would be in support of such a ban. In conclusion, I believe that putting restrictions on smoking at common places and the working institutions is a progressive decision and therefore, would certainly not interfere with the personal freedom of anyone.
A majority of work
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
places
enforce a strict guideline within their compound. The elected state in several areas has
also
prohibited
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoking
at private
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
places
. This happens to be a great
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
idea
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
but
I
strongly
disagree that a step like this would
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
reduce
the right to practice one's freedom. This essay will focus on highlighting the causes to support my opinion. The primary two reasons are
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoking
, being a choice and the damage incurred by passive smokers.

Firstly
, to smoke or not is an individual's personal decision.
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
Just
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
because
anyone wants to smoke, it
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
does
not mean that the other
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
has to
bear the brunt of it. When a person is
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoking
in office or any other public
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
place
, everyone around can smell it; not everyone is comfortable with the odor that
is emitted
.
Therefore
, if the question
is based
on someone's personal approach, then every single person's
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
thought
who happen to be
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
affected
by it, need to
be considered
.
For example
, a recent study by Columbia University
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
shows
that 55% of the working population
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
agree
that they would prefer working in an office which
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
does
not
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
allow
smoking.

Secondly
, all public
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
places
are accessible to everyone.
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
Some
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
people
might be allergic to the smoke.
“If” at the beginning of a sentence usually requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
If
the bureaucracy
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
does
not
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
make
a law to curb
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoking
. Smokers can
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
start
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoking
at all the available areas which are
also
in turn, open to the entire population and
hence
, resulting in the
Possible spelling mistake found.
inconenience
for
This expression is normally spelled as one or with hyphen.
non smokers
.
For example
, an independent survey revealed, that a staggering 72% of families prefer going to the restaurant that
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
does
not admit smokers.
Thus
, re-iterating the fact that majority of the
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
people
would be in support of such a ban.

In conclusion
, I believe that putting restrictions on
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoking
at common
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
places
and the working institutions is a progressive decision and
therefore
, would
certainly
not interfere with the personal freedom of anyone.
14Linking words, meeting the goal of 7 or more
15Repeated words, meeting the goal of 3 or fewer
3Mistakes
To have another language is to possess a second soul.
Charlemagne

IELTS essay Many office authorities impose a restriction on smoking within the office premises. Some governments have even banned smoking in all public places. This is a good idea but it takes away some of our freedom. What are your opinions on this? v. 1

Essay
  American English
4 paragraphs
315 words
6
Overall Band Score
Coherence and Cohesion: 6.0
  • Structure your answers in logical paragraphs
  • ?
    One main idea per paragraph
  • Include an introduction and conclusion
  • Support main points with an explanation and then an example
  • Use cohesive linking words accurately and appropriately
  • Vary your linking phrases using synonyms
Lexical Resource: 5.5
  • Try to vary your vocabulary using accurate synonyms
  • Use less common question specific words that accurately convey meaning
  • Check your work for spelling and word formation mistakes
Grammatical Range: 6.5
  • Use a variety of complex and simple sentences
  • Check your writing for errors
Task Achievement: 6.0
  • Answer all parts of the question
  • ?
    Present relevant ideas
  • Fully explain these ideas
  • Support ideas with relevant, specific examples
Labels Descriptions
  • ?
    Currently is not available
  • Meet the criteria
  • Doesn't meet the criteria
Similar posts


Recent posts