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

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:
many
that
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoking
should
be restricted
in all business
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
places
. Having
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
some
limits for
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoking
in
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
public
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
places
in
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
some
countries is
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
good
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
idea
although it takes away
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
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`s
independence. In my opinion, this view will
Did you mean “affect” (have an effect upon)?
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`s
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
health
, while would disagree with it.

To
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
begin
with,
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
people
who are against banning
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
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`s
freedom. This means that
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
people
have the right to choose
If ‘choose’ is used as a verb, it usually requires the infinitive: “to smoke”.
smoking
even though
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoking
is harmful to their
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
health
. Due to this, nobody can force
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
people
to not
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoke
in
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
public
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
place
even
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
government
.
Therefore
, forbidding
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoking
leads to
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
many
problems for
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
governments
.

On the other hand
, if smokers
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoke
are
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
allowed
to
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoke
in
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
public
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
places
, non-smokers lose their right to stay healthy environment. It is
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
because
, medical research have
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
told
us that taking too much second-hand
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
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 with
public
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
places
should
be set
non-smoking. This is
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
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`s
Possible spelling mistake found.
independency
. In this smoking-or-not case,
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
public
areas belong to all citizens, including
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
people
who do not
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoke
.
Therefore
,
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoking
should
be forbidden
as smokers` freedom of not
being hurt
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
health
away. For another, it is advisable to suggest
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
people
quit
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoking
is related
to
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
many
Possible spelling mistake found.
aspiratory
such as asthma, which would cause
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
governments
` heath care expenditure on those
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
people
If ‘people’ is plural here, don’t use the third-person singular verb.
grows
.
Hence
, forbidding
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoking
is beneficial to individuals and society.

To conclude
,
even though
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoking
limits cause to losing of smokers
Possible spelling mistake found.
independency
, it will
Did you mean “affect” (have an effect upon)?
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`s
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
health
who do not
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
smoke
.

IELTS essay Some businesses now say that no one can smoke cigarettes in any of their offices. Some governments have banned smoking in all public places. This is a good idea but it also takes away some of our freedom.

Essay
  American English
4 paragraphs
278 words
5.0
Overall Band Score
Coherence and Cohesion: 5.0
  • 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: 5.0
  • 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: 5.0
  • 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





Get more results for topic:
  • 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