Writing a Proper Essay for the TOEFL iBT and the IELTS

Be Sure Your Writing Is Coherent.

If cohesion is about connecting words, then coherence is about connecting ideas. Put another way, a coherent piece of writing is one where the reader understands why each point has been included and never has to stop and think “Why did the writer put that bit there?” Everything flows.

It’s a fact of life that examiners do not spend too much time marking an essay – they are not paid by the minute! Therefore – and this is a logical connection – it only makes sense to make it easy for them to see that you are being coherent.

One way to achieve coherence is to focus on openings. The openings of paragraphs (and sentences) need to connect with something that has come before. If there is no connection, the reader will have to stop and think to work out what the writer is thinking. If that happens, the flow of the writing will be lost and coherence will be damaged.
Here is a demonstration of what I mean. Look at the connections in my last paragraph:
One way to achieve coherence is to focus on openings. The openings of paragraphs (and sentences) need to connect with something that has come before. If there is no connection, the reader will have to stop and think to work out what the writer is thinking. If that happens, the flow of the writing will be lost and coherence will be damaged.
Each sentence opening reflects language from the previous sentence so each sentence flows easily into the next. More than that, there is strong connection between the topics of each sentence: they all relate to “coherence”.

Your essay need only be 250 words. It should always have an opening paragraph, two paragraphs to support your opinion and a closing paragraph. The closing paragraph should bring all the other paragraphs “together”. A paragraph can be as short as three sentences: one subject sentence plus two or three sentences that expand on the subject’s thought.

Sample Essay

— Submitted by a student from writing class.

Essay Question: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 takes away some of our freedom. Do you agree or disagree?

Many people suffer from smokers, especially in public places such as offices, trains, planes, trade centres etc. That is why an ability to smoke cigarettes was banned by some officials and businesses.Whetherit is the fact that a ban on smoking is necessary for societies or it will just limit people’s freedom creates a lot of discussions and debates. Personally, I completely agree that the ban on smoking is necessary but this decision should not take away people’s freedom.

On the one hand, according to last scientific researchesa risk of being suffered from a smoke of cigarettes isvery high because of non-smokers and smokers work closely together in any offices. In fact, non-smokers hard to breathe, because a lot of smoke surround them when smoke-people smoke within offices during a working day. They can catch different lung diseases or get even a cancer. In this case, the ban smoking in offices is vitally essential for non-smokers. Hence, it should be a total ban on smoking cigarettes in offices and other places like that, as some businesses say about, because it would be an extremely good protection for people who do not want to smoke and breathe the smoke from cigarettes.

One the other hand, such decision like a ban on smoking in all public places by government is not completely right because of itimpacts on the people’sfreedoms of choice in a democratic society. It would be better if government decides to create specific places for smokers in all public areas instead of to ban them to smoke everywhere. For instance, plenty of special zones were created in airports throughout our country. Thus, all smokers can be inside an airport and do not produce a risk of lung’s illnesses for the rest non-smokers people. Consequently, this example would be the best way which does not encroach on people’s freedoms at all.

As far as I am concerned, I agree with the ban on smoking cigarettes in all public places include any offices, but it should not be just the ban. It would be better if government decides to build different special areas for smokersor to do any events to encourage smokers to give up smoke.

1). This essay is 405 words. For the TOEFL iBT and the IELTS, you only need 250 words so this is almost double.

2). I believe that this individual would have done a better job had he/she written an outline [ Click here for sample. ]

3). Grammer needs a little work.

4). I am not sure the author is getting his/her point across. In other words, due to the non flow of the sentences from one to the next, this essay needs to be more coherent.

Essay Corrected

Many people suffer from smokers, especially in public enclosed places such as offices, trains, planes, trade centres etc. This is why smoking cigarettes was banned by some officials and businesses. Whether it is the fact that a ban on smoking is necessary for societies or it will just limit people’s freedom of choice, creates a lot of discussions and debates. I agree with the ban on smoking in public places, but at the same time, this ban should not take away the peoples individual freedoms to choose to smoke or to choose not to smoke in public.

On the one hand, scientific research shows that an increase in health related risk factors is high among non – smokers due to second hand smokers because of non-smokers and smokers working closely together in offices. In fact, non-smokers find it hard to breathe, because a of all the smoke that surrounds them during their work day. They can catch different lung diseases or even develop lung cancer. In this case, the banning smoking in offices is vitally essential for non-smokers. because it would be an extremely good protection for people who do not want to smoke or breathe the smoke from cigarettes.

One the other hand, banning smoking completely, would infringe on the people’s individual freedom of choice in democratic society. It would be better if the government created specific places for smokers in all public areas instead of to banning smoking everywhere. For instance, plenty of special zones were created in airports throughout our country. In this way, all smokers could be inside an airport and not increase the risk of lung illnesses due to second hand smoke. By setting up special zones for smokers to smoke in public places, this would not encroach on people individual freedom of choice.

In closing, while I may agree with the ban on smoking in the work place, I do not agree with the ban on smoking all together in public places. I believe the government should set up special zones from which smokers are separated from the non – smokers. In this way, all peoples have the individual right to choose whether they want to smoke or not thus limiting the government’s involvement in the people’s individual freedom of choice to choose to smoke or to choose not to smoke.

This entry was posted in IELTS, TOEFL, Writing. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply