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

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

The world is consuming natural resources faster than they can be renewed. Therefore, it is important that products are made to last. Governments should discourage people from constantly buying more up to date or fashionable products. To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Over the last 30 years the West has witnessed the East strive for a larger ‘piece of the economic pie’, aiming for similar living standards to the EU and US. This has increased pressure on natural resources and prompted suggestions for governments to limit consumption. This idea is severely flawed because it reduces product safety and ‘building products to last would harm the poor. Firstly, the suggestion that governments should discourage consumers from purchasing ‘up to date products’ would eliminate the opportunity to improve their safety. This is because as technology improves, new discoveries can be used to increase their utility. Take for example the car industry, here technology such as ABS brakes, air-bags, seat belts have all been derived from a constant flow of improvements. Therefore if the authorities were permitted to limit purchases, car companies would be reluctant to invest in new features, and safety would never improve. Secondly, it is true we are consuming more, through ever increasing populations, nevertheless, the argument that ‘products should be made to last’ is redundant. If products were built stronger they would be more expensive. This would harm the less wealthy consumer, furthermore with modern technology these products can often be recycled at a later date anyway. Glass, plastic, paper, batteries, and even mobile phones are now collected to be re-purposed, reused and recycled. Therefore durable products are unnecessary and would harm lower income demographics. To conclude it is clear that if the public sector were allowed to discourage consumption it would harm product improvements and ultimately consumer safety. Meddling with product durability would most likely harm the poor. Therefore I am strongly opposed to both of these notions.

Over the last 30 years the West has witnessed the East strive for a larger ‘piece of the economic pie’, aiming for similar living standards to the EU and US. This has increased pressure on natural resources and prompted suggestions for This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :national authoritiespublic authorities
governments
 to limit consumption. This This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :thoughtconceptnotion
idea
 is severely
 flawed 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
 it This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :alleviates
reduces
You use this word too often, consider replacing it withcommodityprofitbrandworkamountcrop
product
You use this word too often, consider replacing it withfreedomsecurity
safety
 and ‘building You use this word too often, consider replacing it withcommodityprofitbrandworkamountcrop
products
 to last would You use this word too often, consider replacing it withlossmischiefsabotageviolencedamagewrong
harm
 the poor.

Firstly
, the suggestion that This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :national authoritiespublic authorities
governments
 should discourage consumers from purchasing ‘up to date You use this word too often, consider replacing it withcommodityprofitbrandworkamountcrop
products’
 would eliminate the opportunity to This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :ameliorate
improve
 their You use this word too often, consider replacing it withfreedomsecurity
safety
. 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
 as technology This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :ameliorates
improves
, new discoveries can be This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :exploited
used
 to increase their utility. Take for example
 the car industry, here technology such as ABS brakes, air-bags, seat belts have all been derived
 from a constant flow of improvements. Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?Therefore,
Therefore
 if the authorities were permitted
 to limit This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :acquires
purchases
, car This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :enterprisescorporations
companies
 would be reluctant to invest in new features, and You use this word too often, consider replacing it withfreedomsecurity
safety
 would never This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :ameliorate
improve
.

Secondly
, it is true we are consuming more, through This word is normally spelled with hyphen.ever-increasing
ever increasing
 populations, nevertheless
, the argument that You use this word too often, consider replacing it withcommodityprofitbrandworkamountcrop
‘products
 should be made
 to last’ is redundant. “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
You use this word too often, consider replacing it withcommodityprofitbrandworkamountcrop
products
were built
 stronger they would be more expensive. This would You use this word too often, consider replacing it withlossmischiefsabotageviolencedamagewrong
harm
 the less wealthy consumer, furthermore
 with modern technology these You use this word too often, consider replacing it withcommodityprofitbrandworkamountcrop
products
 can This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:frequently
often
be recycled
 at a later date anyway. Glass, plastic, paper, batteries, and even mobile phones are This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :nowadays
now
 collected to be re-purposed, reused and recycled. Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?Therefore,
Therefore
 durable You use this word too often, consider replacing it withcommodityprofitbrandworkamountcrop
products
 are unnecessary and would You use this word too often, consider replacing it withlossmischiefsabotageviolencedamagewrong
harm
 lower income demographics.

To conclude
 it is This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :apparent
clear
 that if the public sector were This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:admissible
allowed
 to discourage consumption it would You use this word too often, consider replacing it withlossmischiefsabotageviolencedamagewrong
harm
You use this word too often, consider replacing it withcommodityprofitbrandworkamountcrop
product
 improvements and ultimately
 consumer You use this word too often, consider replacing it withfreedomsecurity
safety
. Meddling with You use this word too often, consider replacing it withcommodityprofitbrandworkamountcrop
product
 durability would most likely You use this word too often, consider replacing it withlossmischiefsabotageviolencedamagewrong
harm
 the poor. Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?Therefore,
Therefore
 I am strongly
 opposed to both of these notions. 