IELTS discussion essays: both views and your opinion
A useful discussion explains why reasonable people hold each view, then shows how your judgement follows from the comparison. Naming two opinions is only the starting point.
This guide uses original Academic and General Training Task 2 practice material. The plans illustrate ways to reason, not fixed templates, recalled exam questions or examiner-awarded bands.
Identify three jobs before you plan
Explain the first view: give a reason someone might support it and develop that reason.
Explain the other view: provide a meaningful account of its reasoning, even if it is not your preferred position.
Give your opinion: explain which view is stronger, or define a defensible relationship between them.
Read the actual wording. “Discuss both views and give your opinion” requires all three jobs. An agree/disagree task instead asks you to evaluate a stated claim; do not force two supplied views into a question that does not contain them.
Original worked question: public libraries
Some people think public libraries should focus mainly on books, while others believe they should provide a wider range of community services. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
The contrast is between a main focus on books and a wider community role. “Focus mainly” is not “offer books only”. Replacing it with an absolute position would make the first view easier to attack but less faithful to the question.
Explain a view before you challenge it
A distorted account
“People who want libraries to focus on books do not care about the community and dislike new technology.”
This invents motives. It gives the reader no useful reason to understand or evaluate the book-focused position.
A fairer account
“Supporters of a book-focused library may worry that a limited budget will be spread across too many activities. If new events require extra staff and rooms, lending services or quiet study space could receive less support.”
The argument names a constraint, explains a possible trade-off and connects it to the view. It does not claim this outcome happens in every library.
Give the wider-service view equal care
“Other residents may see community activities as a way to bring more people into learning. For example, a storytelling session could introduce families to books they later borrow, while a digital workshop could help residents find reliable information.”
These examples explain a mechanism. They are more useful than saying “libraries must become modern”, which does not specify what a service achieves.
Then identify the real disagreement
Both views can value public access to learning. The disagreement concerns how to use limited resources. That gives you a basis for judging which additional activities support the core purpose and which compete with it.
A worked discussion essay structure
Here is one four-paragraph route for the library question. Each paragraph performs a clear job; you can use another structure if it fulfils the instruction.
Introduction — define the disagreement and your position. Keep lending and reliable information central, while supporting wider services that make those resources more accessible.
Body 1 — explain the case for focusing on books. Develop the importance of shared collections, study space and knowledgeable staff. Explain how unrelated events might compete for limited resources. Conclude that protecting this core is a legitimate concern.
Body 2 — explain the case for a wider role. Develop one or two services that connect residents to learning. Show why a storytelling session or digital-information workshop can reinforce the core purpose. State the limit: the activity should support access without displacing essential provision.
Conclusion — resolve the comparison. Support a protected core plus connected services. Do not switch to a general events venue or a books-only policy that the body paragraphs did not justify.
Both views need developed attention, but that does not require identical word counts. A long paragraph defending your favourite view and a single dismissive sentence about the other would leave the discussion incomplete.
“Both sides have good points” reports a balance but does not explain what should happen. In this example, use access to books and reliable information as your decision criterion. A wider service earns a place when it supports that purpose and can be delivered without undermining core provision.
A precise judgement
“Libraries should protect lending and information services while adding activities that help residents use them. I would therefore support a reading group linked to the collection, but would not give an unrelated event priority over essential study space.”
This is a qualified position with a practical test, not an attempt to agree with every possible activity. A different answer could prioritise book services more strongly if it explains both views and supports that preference.
Where should your opinion appear?
Make your direction clear early, develop it as you evaluate the views and confirm it at the end. You can distinguish explanation from endorsement: “Supporters argue…” introduces another position; “I consider this concern persuasive because…” gives your judgement. There is no need to repeat “in my opinion” in every paragraph.
A useful transition
Compare “On the other hand, there are many services” with “Wider services can nevertheless strengthen the same educational purpose when they connect residents to books or reliable information.” The second sentence identifies how the next argument relates to the first. See the worked cohesion example for more ways to connect ideas.
Advertising discussion: test a safeguard instead of assuming it works
Original question: children’s learning websites
Some people support allowing advertising on free learning websites designed for children because it helps pay for the service. Others believe these websites should contain no commercial advertising. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
The first view connects advertising with funding free access. The second gives priority to a website without commercial messages. Explain that disagreement before choosing a side. It is not a general question about whether every advertisement is good or bad.
Develop the funding case
A provider needs resources to prepare exercises and maintain the website. Advertising revenue could cover some of those costs without charging families. A child whose family cannot afford another subscription might then retain access to useful practice.
Test the proposed limit
Labelling and separating adverts from exercises could make their purpose clearer. However, the commercial invitation remains on the website. A reader who values an advertising-free learning space can recognise the improvement while judging that it does not resolve the central concern.
A safeguard is a claim to examine, not a reason to stop reasoning. Ask what it changes, what concern remains and whether the remaining concern outweighs the funding benefit. If you prefer an advertising-free service, explain the cost you would accept; do not assume that donations can fund every activity.
Repair the unsupported advertising argument
Draft: “Advertising must be allowed because children need free lessons. Once an advert is labelled, it cannot cause any problem.”
A more defensible pro-advertising position: “Limited advertising could help keep lessons accessible to families unable to pay. I would allow clearly labelled messages outside the exercises, provided they did not interrupt activities or disguise a promotion as a reward. This would not remove every distraction, but I would give continued free access greater weight than that remaining drawback.”
The revision explains a mechanism, states a proposed limit and acknowledges a residual cost. Its conditions are part of the writer’s proposal, not facts supplied by the question. Now argue for no advertising while representing the funding problem fairly.
The complete original advertising essay takes the opposite position and accepts a possible reduction in the range of free lessons. Compare the two judgements: both should explain the competing view and follow their own reasoning through to the end.
An ageing-population discussion: compare needs without stereotyping
Original question: local services for older residents
A town with a growing proportion of older residents is reviewing its community budget. Some residents think extra money should go to organised social activities for older people. Others believe practical support at home should receive priority. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
The decision concerns extra community funding. It does not ask whether older people are valuable, whether everyone needs care or whether one service should disappear. Explain what each proposal could achieve for the people who need or want it.
Represent social participation fairly
A voluntary gardening group could provide regular meetings and a chance to share skills. This describes participants as contributors, not merely people receiving entertainment. Explain how the activity creates contact, then consider access: a resident who cannot reach the venue may need a different arrangement.
Represent practical support fairly
Someone who has difficulty carrying shopping may need help with that specific task. A club meeting does not necessarily solve it. Yet age alone does not establish that need: many older residents manage independently, and preferences differ. Describe the circumstances rather than making a claim about the entire group.
Make a priority explicit
“I would give essential home support the first claim on additional funds because an unmet daily task can limit independence. Existing accessible activities should continue, but new programmes would depend on the money left after those support gaps were addressed.”
This is the sample’s decision rule, not a fact supplied by the question or the only defensible opinion. It acknowledges a constraint: the same extra money cannot be spent fully on both proposals.
Repair an age-based generalisation
Draft: “Older people cannot do anything themselves, so social clubs are a waste of money.” Replace the generalisation, give the competing view a fair reason and state a priority.
Compare a fairer discussion
“Some residents need help with particular daily tasks, while others mainly want opportunities to meet and contribute. Social activities can provide those opportunities, but I would first address gaps in essential support because a meeting cannot substitute for help with a task someone cannot currently manage.”
The revision identifies different circumstances, preserves the value of the other view and explains the priority. It avoids treating everyone in an age group as dependent. Develop both arguments in the full essay rather than relying on this short extract.
The complete original older-residents essay shows the reasoning across four paragraphs. These are hypothetical service examples for writing practice, not demographic findings, individual needs assessments or medical advice.
Seven original discussion questions with annotated answers
Before opening a sample, write one strong reason for each view and one sentence stating your judgement. The sample offers one possible approach, not the only acceptable opinion.
A town with a growing proportion of older residents is reviewing its community budget. Some residents think extra money should go to organised social activities for older people. Others believe practical support at home should receive priority. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Discussion focus: Weigh social participation against essential practical support; distinguish individual needs from age-based assumptions and make a clear funding choice.
Some people support allowing advertising on free learning websites designed for children because it helps pay for the service. Others believe these websites should contain no commercial advertising. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Discussion focus: Weigh access funded by advertising against a commercial-free learning environment; test what a proposed safeguard actually solves.
Some people believe universities should focus on academic subjects, while others think practical skills are more important. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Discussion focus: Distinguish understanding a principle from applying it; decide how the two should fit within a degree.
Some people believe governments should make unhealthy food more expensive. Others believe education is a better solution. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Discussion focus: Explain how price and education would each influence a decision, then evaluate their limits.
As cities grow, some people believe that new housing is more important than preserving parks and green spaces. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Discussion focus: Represent the need for homes and the value of accessible parks without treating either as trivial.
Some teachers think students should be assessed mainly through long-term projects. Others think final examinations provide a fairer assessment. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Discussion focus: Compare what projects and examinations reveal, using a clear meaning of fairness.
Some people think public libraries should focus mainly on books, while others believe they should provide a wider range of community services. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Discussion focus: Decide which wider services support a library’s purpose and which might displace it.
Mark the sentences that explain view A, the sentences that explain view B and the sentences that express or justify your judgement. Read each group in turn.
Does each view receive a reason and an explanation, rather than just a label?
Have you added an extreme word such as “only” or “never” that was not in the question?
Does your opinion use a clear criterion or explain a priority?
Can the reader distinguish someone else’s argument from your own evaluation?
Does the conclusion follow from the comparison you actually wrote?
For a short exercise, change the library plan to favour a stronger book focus. Keep the wider-service argument fair, then explain why protecting the core takes priority in your proposed circumstances. Use the Task Response exercise to check coverage.
Write your own library discussion
Open the task in the free workspace, plan both views and choose a criterion for your judgement. Public AI assessment is paused; the timer, planner, word count and original study resources remain available without an account. The rule-based demo is not an AI score.