IELTS TASK2 Practice!

The rapid diffusion of high-speed internet and collaborative software has normalised remote work for millions. Proponents argue that working from home uplifts both employees and organisations. Firstly, commuting hours disappear, granting staff extra time for rest or professional development, which often translates into higher job satisfaction and reduced turnover. Secondly, companies can save considerable overhead costs by downsizing office space, reallocating resources to R&D or employee training instead. Critics, by contrast, point to potential productivity pitfalls. Not every household provides an environment conducive to focused work; distractions ranging from small children to unreliable Wi-Fi can hamper efficiency. In addition, spontaneous “water-cooler” conversations—fertile ground for creative brainstorming—are harder to replicate virtually. Over time, limited face-to-face interaction may erode team cohesion and dilute organisational culture. In my view, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks only when remote work is implemented thoughtfully. Hybrid policies that mandate on-site collaboration for project kick-offs or critical decision-making sessions can preserve interpersonal bonds, while still offering employees autonomy for deep-focus tasks at home. Furthermore, firms should support staff with stipends for ergonomic equipment and robust IT infrastructure to minimise technical disruptions. To conclude, tele-commuting can indeed enhance productivity and well-being, provided that companies pair flexibility with intentional opportunities for in-person collaboration. Such a balanced approach harnesses the best of both worlds—efficiency for employers and work-life harmony for employees.

Industrial pollution undeniably accelerates climate change, prompting calls for stronger fiscal measures. Advocates of environmental taxation contend that higher levies make polluting activities economically unattractive, nudging firms toward greener technologies. For example, Sweden’s carbon tax, introduced in the 1990s, coincided with a notable decline in national emissions despite steady economic growth. Nevertheless, critics caution that taxation alone may be insufficient. Multinational corporations can relocate factories to jurisdictions with laxer regulations, thereby “outsourcing” emissions rather than reducing them. Moreover, heavy taxes often trickle down to consumers as price hikes, disproportionately affecting low-income households. In my opinion, a multi-pronged strategy is indispensable. Governments should certainly impose targeted taxes, but these must be complemented by subsidies for renewable energy research and strict enforcement of emission standards. Simultaneously, public awareness campaigns can empower individuals to adopt low-carbon lifestyles—cycling to work or reducing meat consumption, for instance. When citizens demand eco-friendly products, market forces compel corporations to innovate. In summary, while environmental taxes are a powerful tool, they are most effective when embedded in a broader policy framework that engages both industry and individual consumers.

Children’s advertising has become omnipresent—from Saturday-morning cartoons to algorithm-curated social-media feeds. Opponents claim that youngsters lack the critical faculties to differentiate persuasive intent from entertainment, making them uniquely vulnerable. Exposure to high-sugar cereal commercials, for example, has been linked to unhealthy dietary patterns and rising childhood obesity rates. Banning such adverts, they argue, shields children from manipulative messaging and promotes long-term public health. Conversely, proponents maintain that advertising drives economic growth by informing consumers of product choices and fuelling competition. Child-oriented marketing, they claim, funds free content and educational programming. Furthermore, total prohibition may infringe upon corporate free-speech rights and prove difficult to enforce in the borderless digital realm. I contend that a partial ban strikes the optimal balance. Regulations should prohibit adverts for nutritionally poor foods and age-inappropriate products during time slots when minors constitute the primary audience. Simultaneously, companies could be encouraged—through tax incentives—to market educational toys or literacy apps that genuinely benefit children’s development. Parental media-literacy initiatives would further empower caregivers to mediate advertising influences. To conclude, protecting children’s welfare need not come at the expense of economic vitality. Thoughtful regulation coupled with positive incentives can cultivate a commercial landscape that both respects young viewers and sustains industry innovation.