Some people think that governments should ban dangerous sports, while others think people should have freedom to do any sports or activity.

Practice this IELTS Writing Task 2 question on IELTSX. Some people think that governments should ban dangerous sports, while others think people should have freedom to do any sports or activity.

Governments Ban Dangerous Sports vs Freedom Any Sports Activity - IELTS Writing Task 2

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Write at least 250 words.

A student's answer to this task, and the feedback on it

Written by an IELTSX user under exam conditions and published unedited and anonymously. Band 7 · 278 words.

High-risk sports such as motor racing and mountain climbing injure many people every year, so some argue that governments should prohibit them. Although the dangers are genuine, I believe adults should remain free to choose, provided that governments enforce strict safety standards rather than impose bans.

Supporters of a ban begin with the harm that these sports inflict on participants. Serious accidents place a heavy burden on hospitals, and public money covers both treatment and rescue operations. A badly injured athlete may be unable to work for months, which puts the whole family under strain. For example, when a climber falls on a mountain, a rescue team may search for days at the taxpayers’ expense. These costs make a ban look like a straightforward way to safeguard people and save public money.

However, a ban would deprive adults of a choice that they are entitled to make. Risk is inherent in ordinary life, from driving to playing football, and most adults understand the dangers of a sport before they begin. A ban would not eliminate these activities either. People would simply pursue them in secret, without training, proper supervision or medical support. Governments can mitigate the risks far more effectively by requiring safety equipment, qualified instructors and age limits. Consider a racing circuit with strict rules and an ambulance on site: it is much safer than an illegal race on public roads. Regulation therefore protects people while respecting their autonomy.

In conclusion, such sports are undeniably dangerous, but a blanket ban is the wrong response. The injuries and the costs matter, but adults should keep the freedom to choose their activities, and firm safety rules can protect them.

Examiner feedback

This is a clear, well-organised response that takes a defensible middle position and supports it with relevant reasoning and a useful comparison. The main factors holding it at Band 7 rather than higher are the underdeveloped claim about adults' awareness of risk and a conclusion that mostly repeats the introduction. Language control is strong, with only minor slips.

Task Response - 7

- Addresses both views: the case for a ban (harm to participants, public costs) and the case for freedom, then gives a clear middle position that favours regulation over prohibition. - Ideas are relevant and reasonably developed. The rescue-cost and family-strain points, and the racing-circuit versus illegal-race comparison, give the argument concrete support. - The argument stays focused, but the claim that most adults understand the dangers is asserted rather than supported, and the conclusion largely restates the introduction, so it adds little new.

Coherence & Cohesion - 7

- Four clearly organised paragraphs: introduction with position, the case for a ban, the counter-argument, and conclusion. Each paragraph has a clear central topic. - Cohesive devices are used well and naturally (“However,” “therefore,” “either,” “In conclusion”), with clear progression from harm to autonomy to regulation. - Referencing is mostly clear, though “these activities … either” in the second body paragraph is slightly ambiguous, as it is unclear whether it refers to dangerous sports or to ordinary life.

Lexical Resource - 7

- Good range with precise, less common items used appropriately: “inherent,” “mitigate,” “blanket ban,” “autonomy,” “deprive … of a choice,” “strain.” - No significant spelling or word-formation errors. Only minor issues appear, such as the article in “the taxpayers’ expense.” - Collocations are largely natural (“safeguard people,” “straightforward way,” “firm safety rules”). Some phrasing is slightly formal or generic, such as “public money covers both treatment and rescue operations.”

Grammatical Range & Accuracy - 7

- A good variety of structures: concessive (“Although the dangers are genuine”), conditional/contrastive (“provided that … rather than”), comparative (“much safer than”), and relative/participial clauses. - Most sentences are accurate. Errors are rare and minor, with no sentences that cause difficulty for the reader. - Punctuation is generally well controlled, including the possessive apostrophe and commas around linking words. Occasional commas before clauses could be tightened.

Related prompts

Start Practice