Search
Vocabularying
Listening
Reading
1. Academic
2. General
Writing
1. IELTSWriting Checker
2. IELTS Writing Samples
Speaking

Do you want to improve your writing? Try our new evaluation service and get detailed feedback.

Some businesses now say that no-one can smoke cigarettes in any of their offices. Some governments have banned smoking in all public places. Do you agree or disagree with this? v.3

It is always argued by many that smoking should be restricted in all business places. Having some limits for smoking in public places in some countries is good idea although it takes away many people`s independence. In my opinion, this view will effect negatively for people`s health, while would disagree with it. To begin with, people who are against banning smoking claim that it takes away people`s freedom. This means that people have the right to choose smoking even though smoking is harmful to their health. Due to this, nobody can force people to not smoke in public place even government. Therefore, forbidding smoking leads to many problems for governments. On the other hand, if smokers smoke are allowed to smoke in public places, non-smokers lose their right to stay healthy environment. It is because, medical research have told us that taking too much second-hand smoke could have detrimental influence on non-smokers, causing asthma, lung cancer or other diseases. In addition, advocates argue that public places should be set non-smoking. This is because human freedom should be protected, provided that it does not deprive other people`s independency. In this smoking-or-not case, public areas belong to all citizens, including people who do not smoke. Therefore, smoking should be forbidden as smokers` freedom of not being hurt health away. For another, it is advisable to suggest people quit smoking is related to many aspiratory such as asthma, which would cause governments` heath care expenditure on those people grows. Hence, forbidding smoking is beneficial to individuals and society. To conclude, even though smoking limits cause to losing of smokers independency, it will effect positively for people`s health who do not smoke.

It is always argued by This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:a plethora ofa number ofnumerous
many
 that You use this word too often, consider replacing it withfrenziedfanaticaldeliriouszealousenthusiasticcrazed
smoking
 should be restricted
 in all business You use this word too often, consider replacing it withneighborhoodpointhousesitecommunityseat
places
. Having This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:a number of
some
 limits for You use this word too often, consider replacing it withfrenziedfanaticaldeliriouszealousenthusiasticcrazed
smoking
 in You use this word too often, consider replacing it withurbanmutualciviccivilnationalcommunal
public
You use this word too often, consider replacing it withneighborhoodpointhousesitecommunityseat
places
 in This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:a number of
some
 countries is This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :beneficialproduct
good
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :thoughtconceptnotion
idea
 although it takes away This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:a plethora ofa number ofnumerous
many
The character between ‘people’ and ‘s’ is an accent character, not a standard apostrophe character. Use “people’s” (curly apostrophe) or “people’s” (straight apostrophe).people’speople's
people`s
 independence. In my opinion, this view will Did you mean “affect” (have an effect upon)?affect
effect
negatively
 for The character between ‘people’ and ‘s’ is an accent character, not a standard apostrophe character. Use “people’s” (curly apostrophe) or “people’s” (straight apostrophe).people’speople's
people`s
You use this word too often, consider replacing it withenergystrengthwell-beingfitness
health
, while would disagree with it.

To This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :initiatecommence
begin
 with, You use this word too often, consider replacing it withcrowdfamilycommunitynationsocietypublic
people
 who are against banning You use this word too often, consider replacing it withfrenziedfanaticaldeliriouszealousenthusiasticcrazed
smoking
 claim that it takes away The character between ‘people’ and ‘s’ is an accent character, not a standard apostrophe character. Use “people’s” (curly apostrophe) or “people’s” (straight apostrophe).people’speople's
people`s
 freedom. This means that You use this word too often, consider replacing it withcrowdfamilycommunitynationsocietypublic
people
 have the right to choose If ‘choose’ is used as a verb, it usually requires the infinitive: “to smoke”.to smoke
smoking
even though
You use this word too often, consider replacing it withfrenziedfanaticaldeliriouszealousenthusiasticcrazed
smoking
 is harmful to their You use this word too often, consider replacing it withenergystrengthwell-beingfitness
health
. Due to this, nobody can force You use this word too often, consider replacing it withcrowdfamilycommunitynationsocietypublic
people
 to not You use this word too often, consider replacing it withexhaustmistgasfogsootsmog
smoke
 in You use this word too often, consider replacing it withurbanmutualciviccivilnationalcommunal
public
You use this word too often, consider replacing it withneighborhoodpointhousesitecommunityseat
place
 even This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :national authoritypublic authority
government
. Therefore
, forbidding You use this word too often, consider replacing it withfrenziedfanaticaldeliriouszealousenthusiasticcrazed
smoking
 leads to This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:a plethora ofa number ofnumerous
many
 problems for This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :national authoritiespublic authorities
governments
.

On the other hand
, if smokers You use this word too often, consider replacing it withexhaustmistgasfogsootsmog
smoke
 are This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:admissible
allowed
 to You use this word too often, consider replacing it withexhaustmistgasfogsootsmog
smoke
 in You use this word too often, consider replacing it withurbanmutualciviccivilnationalcommunal
public
You use this word too often, consider replacing it withneighborhoodpointhousesitecommunityseat
places
, non-smokers lose their right to stay healthy environment. It is This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:due to the factin light of the fact thatowing to the fact that
because
, medical research have This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :informed
told
 us that taking too much second-hand You use this word too often, consider replacing it withexhaustmistgasfogsootsmog
smoke
 could have detrimental influence on non-smokers, causing asthma, lung cancer or other diseases. In addition
, advocates argue that You use this word too often, consider replacing it withurbanmutualciviccivilnationalcommunal
public
You use this word too often, consider replacing it withneighborhoodpointhousesitecommunityseat
places
 should be set
 non-smoking. This is This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:due to the factin light of the fact thatowing to the fact that
because
 human freedom should be protected
, provided that it does not deprive other The character between ‘people’ and ‘s’ is an accent character, not a standard apostrophe character. Use “people’s” (curly apostrophe) or “people’s” (straight apostrophe).people’speople's
people`s
Possible spelling mistake found.independenceIndependencein dependency
independency
. In this smoking-or-not case, You use this word too often, consider replacing it withurbanmutualciviccivilnationalcommunal
public
 areas belong to all citizens, including You use this word too often, consider replacing it withcrowdfamilycommunitynationsocietypublic
people
 who do not You use this word too often, consider replacing it withexhaustmistgasfogsootsmog
smoke
. Therefore
, You use this word too often, consider replacing it withfrenziedfanaticaldeliriouszealousenthusiasticcrazed
smoking
 should be forbidden
 as smokers` freedom of not being hurt
You use this word too often, consider replacing it withenergystrengthwell-beingfitness
health
 away. For another, it is advisable to suggest You use this word too often, consider replacing it withcrowdfamilycommunitynationsocietypublic
people
 quit You use this word too often, consider replacing it withfrenziedfanaticaldeliriouszealousenthusiasticcrazed
smoking
is related
 to This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:a plethora ofa number ofnumerous
many
Possible spelling mistake found.aspiratoraspirators
aspiratory
 such as asthma, which would cause This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :national authoritiespublic authorities
governments
` heath care expenditure on those You use this word too often, consider replacing it withcrowdfamilycommunitynationsocietypublic
people
If ‘people’ is plural here, don’t use the third-person singular verb.grow
grows
. Hence
, forbidding You use this word too often, consider replacing it withfrenziedfanaticaldeliriouszealousenthusiasticcrazed
smoking
 is beneficial to individuals and society.

To conclude
, even though
You use this word too often, consider replacing it withfrenziedfanaticaldeliriouszealousenthusiasticcrazed
smoking
 limits cause to losing of smokers Possible spelling mistake found.independenceIndependencein dependency
independency
, it will Did you mean “affect” (have an effect upon)?affect
effect
positively
 for The character between ‘people’ and ‘s’ is an accent character, not a standard apostrophe character. Use “people’s” (curly apostrophe) or “people’s” (straight apostrophe).people’speople's
people`s
You use this word too often, consider replacing it withenergystrengthwell-beingfitness
health
 who do not You use this word too often, consider replacing it withexhaustmistgasfogsootsmog
smoke
. 