Task 2 Essay

Question

Hi,Would you be able to check the following essay, please?Some people believe that passports are essential as a way of regulating the population of countries. Others believe they should be abolished and we should be able to travel where we like. Discuss both points of view and give your opinion.There is a widely-held belief that passports are of significant importance so as to control countries' population. The issue, however, is by no means straightforward, and arguments can also be made against the stipulation. Both the arguments will be examined in this paper, followed by a concluding view.On the one hand, those who support the viewpoint regarding the undeniable role of passports to regulate the population can point to some reasons. To start with, that governments' policies are often formulated based on the number of citizens means there should be a strict control through passports. Basic healthcare and education, for instance, which are the essential services in almost every country may well be provided as long as policy makers have an official statistic regarding the population. The bottom line would be minimizing the risk of terrorism and crime on the grounds that those with criminal records may be spotted and hence denied admission. Furthermore, thanks to technology, one's personal details together with fingerprints and eye scanning data could be stored in a passport's bar code, thus reducing the possibility of a forged passport.On the other hand, those who are at loggerheads with the former group call for the abolition of passports, contending that there should not be any limitation on travels. They point to the fact that it is eliminating passports that can promote equality in the world. It would not be fair if some travelers are deprived of traveling to some countries just because of their nationality or religion, and examples of this can be observed for Muslims who are not able to go to America. They stipulate, moreover, that scrapping passports would open doors to tourism so its corollary will be a boost in the economy of those counties whose passport dynamics used to impede to this industry.All in all, I am inclined to side with the latter school of thought. Not only does it lead to the expansion of a country's economy, it can also be a major step towards reduction in inequality.

Poster · Accepted Answer

I find the wording of the question somewhat odd. The phrase "regulating the population" seems normally to refer to controlling the population size (for instance, a "one-child" policy) , or other measures to resettle or retrain the labor force. See here: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22regulating%20the%20population%22&tbm=bks&lr=lang_en

However the question seems to require a focus on freedom to travel internationally, or perhaps by "passport" they mean "identity card". It should be remembered that in many English-speaking countries, there is no requirement to carry an identity card, or hold a passport, or register one's current abode with the local police. Nor are there police checkpoints along major highways as was the case in some areas of the world. In some countries the police cannot stop you on the street without reasonable cause, and you are free to go about your normal business without interference.

There is a widely-held belief that passports are of significant importance so as [essential/central] to control countries' population. [I cannot find "countries' " on Google books:-> the population of a country. ] The issue, however, is by no means straightforward, and arguments can also be made against the stipulation. [What stipulation? -> this stipulation (needs the backward referencing)] Both the arguments will be examined in this paper, followed by a concluding view. Just state your position in the introduction: this is a IELTS requirement.

On the one hand, those who support the viewpoint regarding the undeniable role of passports [the need for passports] to regulate the population can point to some reasons. [Why not just start with "There are some good reasons for requiring passports . "] To start with, ~~that~~ governments' policies are often formulated based on the number of citizens, and this means there should be a strict control through passports. Basic healthcare and education, for instance, which are the essential services in almost every country [Must comma off non-defining relative clauses.] may well be provided as long as policy makers have an official statistic regarding the population. The bottom line [Strictly speaking this refers to net profit after tax, which does not fit the context well. -> Passport controls are crucial to minimizing ....] would be minimizing the risk of terrorism and crime on the grounds that those with criminal records may be spotted and hence denied admission. Furthermore, thanks to technology, one's personal details together with fingerprints and eye scanning data could be stored in a passport's bar code, thus reducing the possibility of a forged passport. [This last sentence seems to be tagged on as an afterthought, and detracts from paragraph cohesion and focus.]

On the other hand, those who are at loggerheads with the former group [More simply, and less cumbersome: others] call for the abolition of passports, contending that there should not be any limitation on travels ['Travel' is rarely plural or countable.]. They point to the fact that it is eliminating passports that can promote equality in the world. It would not be fair if some travelers are deprived of traveling to some countries just because of their nationality or religion, and examples of this can be observed for Muslims who are not able to go to America. They stipulate [argue?], moreover, that scrapping passports would open doors to tourism so its corollary will be [and consequently] a boost in the economy of those counties whose passport dynamics used to impede to this industry.

All in all, I am inclined to side with the latter school of thought. Not only does it lead to the expansion of a country's economy, it can also be a major step towards reduction in inequality. [I am left wondering why you did not say this in the first place, and then explain why, together with any reservations. This would have made your position clear throughout, whilst inevitably discussing both points of view. ]

https://takeielts.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/IELTS_task_2_Writing_band_descriptors.pdf

Despite the red ink, apart from some issues with word choice, this essay addresses the task adequately, shows coherence and cohesion, and has few grammar or punctuation issues.

Poster · Answer

"I reckon" is not used in writing. -> in my opinion ....

I still find difficulty in understanding exactly what is meant by "passport" here. Perhaps "travel permit", or "exit permit", or "travel documents", or "identity card". Some countries use "(multiple) re-entry permits" for permanent residents who are not citizens.

"[a]ll Iranian nationals, including American-Iranian nationals, should have an exit permit stamped in their passports. The stamp is affixed to page 11 or 13 of the Iranian passport when it is issued and remains valid until the expiration date of the passport (25 Aug. 2005)"

https://www.refworld.org/docid/45f147f62.html

I do not see how "to reserve passports for very specific cases such as combating terrorism and crime" would work. Surely all travelers would need to hold a valid document?

Or are we in fact talking about visas? That would fit the sentence about "Muslims who are not able to go to America", and most of the essay.

Task 2 Essay

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions