By English Test Coach · Updated
Task 2 · Agree or disagree
An opinion essay needs more than “I agree”. Decide exactly which claim you support, how far you support it and why your reasons justify that position.
Use this guide for Academic or General Training Task 2 practice. The questions, plans and examples are original teaching material, not recalled exam questions or examiner-scored answers.
Explain the degree of your agreement. You may fully agree, fully disagree or support a clearly defined part of the proposal. A qualified position needs a boundary the reader can follow; “there are advantages and disadvantages” does not yet say what you think.
Underline words such as all, only, compulsory and even if. They can change the claim you must evaluate. An argument that a method helps some students cannot, by itself, establish that every student should be required to use it.
If your task also asks you to discuss two views, you must cover both. Compare the discussion instruction before choosing a structure.
Some people think that managing personal finances should be taught as a compulsory subject at school. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Choose the position you can explain most clearly. None of these directions earns a band score merely because it is full or partial agreement.
“I agree that every pupil should receive compulsory lessons in personal finance because everyday budgeting affects all school leavers and access to guidance at home varies.”
Reasoning to develop: a universal need and unequal access. Show how lessons would help; do not assume a subject is effective just because it is compulsory.
“I disagree with making personal finance a separate compulsory subject: practical money examples can be taught within existing lessons, while schools retain time for other priorities.”
Reasoning to develop: integration and the cost of timetable space. Explain why this answers the proposal; avoid claiming that financial knowledge is unimportant if your argument is only against a separate subject.
“I largely agree that basic financial education should be compulsory, provided that it teaches ordinary decisions rather than investment strategies.”
Reasoning to develop: universal access to useful basics, with a practical limit on scope. The condition specifies what you support; it does not cancel your agreement.
“Money is important, but schools are busy, so I agree and disagree.”
This names two considerations without resolving them. Repair it by deciding whether the timetable objection rules out compulsory teaching or only changes how you would deliver it.
This structure fits our chosen argument. It is a planning example, not a compulsory paragraph formula.
A counterargument is useful here because it tests the practicality of our position. It is not an automatic requirement to devote half an agree/disagree essay to the opposite view. Give your own reasoning enough space.
“Financial education is useful because it teaches useful skills for life.”
The second half repeats the first. The reader still cannot see what a pupil would learn or how it would help.
“A class could compare two fictional loans with different monthly payments and repayment periods. Calculating the total cost would show why a smaller monthly payment does not necessarily mean a cheaper loan. This gives pupils a question to ask before making an ordinary borrowing decision.”
The sequence connects an exercise, an insight and a practical use. It is a hypothetical teaching example, not a study, statistic or financial recommendation.
Add a proportionate limit: “However, understanding a budget cannot make an inadequate income sufficient.” That qualification narrows the benefit without contradicting the argument for basic teaching. See how to connect claims, examples and explanations.
Do not insert these expressions as a memorised set. Choose the relationship first, then check that the sentence says what you mean. The sentence-control lesson compares ways to join ideas accurately.
The timetable objection tests whether compulsory financial education can fit into school life. Acknowledging that constraint does not force you to abandon your position. Explain what the objection changes about your proposal and why you still support the remaining version.
“Some people say schools do not have enough time, but money is very important, so they are wrong.”
Importance does not create timetable space. This reply repeats the benefit without explaining what schools would teach, where it would fit or what preparation it would require.
“Schools already have competing demands on lesson time, so adding a large separate course would be difficult. However, a limited unit on household budgets and borrowing could be integrated into mathematics or citizenship lessons. Every pupil would still receive basic instruction, while the proposal would require less additional timetable space than a broad investment course. Teachers would need preparation and suitable examples, so integration would reduce the demand rather than remove it. I therefore support compulsory practical basics with a defined scope.”
This is one way to test our argument, not a required four-sentence formula or a band-scored extract. You can develop a different response, reject the proposal or omit a separate counterargument paragraph when your reasoning does not need one. Follow the actual instruction: an agree/disagree essay and a discussion of both views have different requirements.
Read the curriculum-objection paragraph in the complete answer. It also explains why relying entirely on families could leave unequal access to basic teaching. Use that reason where it supports your judgement; it does not by itself solve the timetable problem.
A writer responds: “Schools could offer an optional after-school finance club, so I agree that every pupil should receive compulsory lessons.” Identify the mismatch. Then choose whether to retain compulsory access or change the overall position.
Keep the agreement: propose a limited unit within lessons that every pupil attends, and explain the time and preparation it would require. An optional club alone does not provide compulsory access.
Change the position: oppose compulsory teaching and support an optional club instead. The essay would then need to defend voluntary participation and address the possibility that some pupils receive no instruction. Revise the introduction and conclusion to match.
Scientific research should be funded and controlled by governments rather than private companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
“Funded and controlled” combines two decisions. Funding concerns who supplies money; control concerns who chooses priorities and can influence the work. A reason for public funding does not automatically justify exclusive government control. Keep both claims visible when deciding the extent of your agreement.
“Governments should fund research because some useful projects may offer little commercial return.”
This gives a relevant funding reason. It does not yet explain whether companies should also contribute, or whether governments should control research instead of them. Adding more examples of useful projects would not repair that missing decision.
“Governments should fund research with broad public benefits and establish safeguards, but they should not be the only source of finance or exercise unrestricted control. I support mixed funding with independent review and clear disclosure of funders’ influence.”
The writer supports a public role while rejecting exclusive funding and unchecked control. The body must now explain how the proposed safeguards would address both commercial and political influence.
The two claims can run through both paragraphs. You do not need equal word counts or a compulsory “funding paragraph / control paragraph” formula. The test is whether a reader can identify your answer to each claim and follow the reasons for it. Read the complete mixed-accountability answer to compare this plan with developed paragraphs.
A writer supports government funding for every project but wants independent researchers to set priorities. Their conclusion says, “I therefore fully agree that governments should fund and control all research.” Identify the mismatch and revise the conclusion without changing the stated position.
“I support government funding for all research, but I disagree that funding should give governments control over every project’s priorities. Independent researchers should make those decisions within clearly defined public safeguards.”
This is partial agreement with the combined proposal. To defend it in a full essay, the writer would also need to explain the case for excluding private finance and how independent priority-setting would remain accountable. Stating a boundary does not replace developing those reasons.
For a priority with a practical limit, compare the worked shared-school-facilities argument: useful existing capacity can deserve preference while an unmet need still justifies new provision.
Each question has its own planning notes, vocabulary and annotated answer. Draft your position before reading the sample; use the annotation to compare reasoning, not to memorise an essay.
Local councils should give priority to opening school sports facilities for public use outside teaching hours rather than building new sports centres. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Planning focus: Give suitable shared facilities priority without assuming all school space is available or ruling out every new centre.
Some people think public transport should be free in cities to reduce congestion and pollution. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Planning focus: Test whether removing fares would actually change a commuter’s choice.
Some people think that managing personal finances should be taught as a compulsory subject at school. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Planning focus: Define what compulsory teaching should include, then explain why that scope matters.
Scientific research should be funded and controlled by governments rather than private companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Planning focus: Separate who funds research from who controls its priorities.
Manufacturers should be required to make everyday products easy to repair, even if this raises their purchase price. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Planning focus: Weigh the value of repair against the initial price of a product.
Schools and universities should use automated systems to give students feedback on all written assignments. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Planning focus: Decide whether your argument supports automated feedback on all assignments or only some.
Universities should be required to include planted green roofs on all suitable new buildings, even if this increases construction costs. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Planning focus: Keep the condition ‘suitable’ when evaluating a requirement for new buildings.
For a short exercise, write a disagreeing introduction to the financial-education question and two supporting planning notes. Compare them with our qualified-agreement plan: the reasons should change with the position. Review the Task Response guidance for the wider assessment context.
The free writing workspace opens with the original task selected, a planner, timer and word count. Public AI assessment is currently paused; the rule-based demo is not an AI score. You can write and use the study resources without an account.
Plan and write your opinion →Explore other Task 2 topics →