In this post: Three questions to check every health argument, the core collocations from my essays, and breakdowns of my sugar-price, home-cooking and global-food paragraphs, with rewrites.
Health and Food · 3 parts
- 1. Common questions and arguments
- 2. Argument checks and breakdowns (you are here)
- 3. Model, mistakes and practice
✦ In this post
2. Argument bank: eight logic chains for health essays (continued)
After writing your arguments, check them with three questions
Health arguments easily “sound right”, so after writing an outline I now check every argument with three questions. They happen to match the lessons from my own three essays:
| Checking question | What failing looks like | How to fix it |
|---|---|---|
| Is this argument within the scope of the question? | The question is about processed food with a lot of added sugar, but I argued that “people need sugar” | Go back and circle the limiting words in the question; your argument must respond to that scope |
| Does the cause and effect hold without specialist theory? | Using supply and demand theory to conclude that “manufacturers will produce more after prices rise” | Switch to cause and effect that works on common sense (habits, substitutes) |
| Will the example stand up to questioning? | Naming a specific country and year and saying an industry “lost its whole market share” | Change it to a hypothetical example or a general description |
Only when an argument passes all three questions does it really “stand up”. This step takes about a minute, but it saves you from discovering a problem with your direction after writing a whole paragraph.
3. Core vocabulary and collocations for health essays
| Collocation | My original sentence (source essay) | More natural / upgraded version |
|---|---|---|
| sugary products | eating too many sugary products leads to health problems (sugar prices) | Natural; use it as it is |
| an unbalanced diet | increasing the price of sugary products will result in an unbalanced diet (sugar prices) | The collocation is fine, but the cause and effect does not really hold; see Breakdown 1 |
| discourage sb from V-ing | become more costly to discourage people from purchasing them (sugar prices) | Natural; use it as it is |
| hit the market | more and more sugary products will hit the market (sugar prices) | Natural; good for new products being launched |
| keep away from | keep away from ingredients which post a threat to my body (cooking at home) | avoid ingredients that pose a threat to my health |
| a financial burden on | leading to financial burden on some individuals or households (cooking at home) | leading to a financial burden on… |
| at an affordable price | a place always sells products at affordable price (cooking at home) | at affordable prices; “traditional supermarket” → traditional market |
| long-distance shipment | domestic goods, which are not necessary for long-distance international shipment (global food) | domestic goods, which do not need to be shipped long distances |
| pose a threat to | exotic products always post a threat to domestic food (global food) | pose a threat to local producers |
| obesity / chronic diseases | (I never used it; added here) | contribute to obesity and chronic diseases such as diabetes |
| sleep deprivation | (I never used it; added here) | sleep deprivation affects concentration |
| preventive healthcare | (I never used it; added here) | invest in preventive healthcare |
4. Breaking down my own paragraphs
The paragraphs below are the original versions I submitted for marking, unedited. The analysis is my own, based on the public band descriptors.
Breakdown 1 | Should sugary products cost more? (Cambridge 16 Test 2, Disagree): TR 8, but a risky argument
Original: the second body paragraph
Secondly, even though people may stop buying expensive sugary products owing to their price, the revenue of sugary products increases, motivating manufacturers to make more sugary products. To put it another way, if this policy is implemented, a number of sugary products still be sold in the markets since manufacturers earn a lot of profit by producing sugary products. For instance, based on the demand and supply theory, the number of the supply will undeniably grow simultaneously when the price rises due to the increase of suppliers surplus; hence, more and more sugary products will hit the market when the price grows, violating the original goal of implementing this policy.
What works: the position is clear (disagree), and both reasons respond directly to whether higher prices can reduce sugar consumption, so Task Response was 8. Using supply and demand theory as an example also shows an attempt to take the argument deeper.
Why Coherence was 6, I think, lies in the logic of the argument itself: the first sentence says “people may stop buying because of the price”, and then it says “revenue increases and manufacturers produce more”. These two claims contradict each other: if fewer people buy, revenue will not necessarily rise. Moreover, making products “more expensive” in this question would most likely be done through a tax, and tax revenue goes to the government, not to manufacturers, so the conclusion that “manufacturers earn more and produce more” does not necessarily follow. Readers get stuck at this point, and the paragraph loses its momentum.
The first body paragraph has a similar problem: I argued that “sugar is essential, and a lack of sugar threatens mental health”, and wrote “various research say”. But the question is about processed foods with a lot of added sugar; the carbohydrates the body needs can come from rice and fruit, so this argument could easily be seen as misreading the question.
Rewrite (replacing the second reason with “habits” and “substitutes”)
Secondly, a higher price alone is unlikely to change people’s eating habits in the long term. Many consumers buy sugary drinks out of habit rather than after comparing prices, so they may simply accept the extra cost. Others may switch to cheaper snacks that are equally unhealthy. For this reason, raising prices without educating the public would treat the symptom rather than the cause.
The rewritten argument is more solid: it needs no economic theory and works on common sense alone (buying drinks is mostly habit, and people may switch to other unhealthy snacks), and it leads directly to the conclusion that “education tackles the root cause better than higher prices”.
Breakdown 2 | Cooking at home vs eating out (Agree): a personal example that earned CC 8
Original: the second body paragraph
Another reason supporting my opinion is that eating at home saves more money. Having meals outside, especially in luxury restaurants, always costs a large amount of money, leading to financial burden on some individuals or households. However, if we choose to make foods by ourselves, we can save a certain amount of money by choosing cheaper ingredients or purchasing those things on traditional supermarket, a place always sells products at affordable price. Take myself as an illustration. In Taiwan, an average expenditure when eating outside is around $150-200 New Taiwan Dollars; in contrast, the spending is roughly $100 dollars per meal if we choose to make meals by ourselves. Hence, cooking and eating at home is economical.
What works: Coherence was 8. The order of the paragraph is very clear: eating out is expensive → cooking saves money (because you can choose cheaper ingredients and shop at traditional markets) → a concrete price comparison → conclusion. Using my own daily life and prices in New Taiwan dollars (NT$150–200 is roughly US$5–6.50) as the example is far more natural than invented statistics.
What could be improved:
- “especially in luxury restaurants” weakens the argument: the question compares ordinary eating out, so comparing with expensive restaurants is not quite fair. Deleting it actually makes the paragraph more convincing.
- “Take myself as an illustration” is followed by “the average spending in Taiwan”, not a personal experience, so the structure and the content do not match. In my experience, … is more natural.
- “$100 dollars” is repetitive (the $ already means dollars); “traditional supermarket” should be traditional market; and “a place always sells” is missing “that”.
- The last sentence of my conclusion said the authorities always encourage people to cook for themselves. That is new content not mentioned in the body paragraphs, and “always” is too absolute, so I would delete it.
Breakdown 3 | Food from around the world (Cambridge 19 Test 4, Negative): 7.5, but be careful with the example
Original: the second body paragraph
Another factor supporting my opinion is that exotic products always post a threat to domestic food, hindering the development of local economy. Since the demand of each product in a nation is limited, if an increasing number of foreign food imported, the competitiveness that local market needs to face will witness an upward trend simultaneously. For instance, rice from China, which is cheaper, has definitely threatened the industry in Taiwan since 1990. Due to the fact that Chinese labor and raw materials are far cheaper than that in Taiwan, Taiwanese factories lose the whole market share after Chinese rice has been imported. Hence, importing food from other countries sometimes lower the revenue of local manufacturers.
What works: both Task Response and Coherence were 8 in this essay. The introduction states “negative development” from the start, and the reasoning in this paragraph is complete: demand is limited → more imports → more competition for local producers → example → lower local income.
What needs care is the example: it names a specific country and year and says the industry “lost the whole market share”, but none of these details can be checked in the exam room, so stating them so confidently is actually risky. “Factories” is also the wrong word for rice (farmers grow rice). The examiner will not fact-check you, but a “fact” that is too absolute and too specific weakens your credibility the moment it is inaccurate. A safer approach is a hypothetical example or a more general description.
Rewrite (the example in hypothetical form)
For instance, if cheaper imported rice fills supermarket shelves, local farmers who face higher labour and land costs may struggle to sell their crops at a fair price, and some may eventually give up farming altogether.
This version keeps the original logic (cheap imports → higher local costs → local producers suffer) but needs no specific year or country. The full breakdown is in the global food Band 7.5 sample.
Continue reading · Part 3 of 3
IELTS Notes in English · Topic Guides (post 5 of 10)
← Previous: IELTS Task 2 Topic Guide: Environment and Energy
Next →: IELTS Task 2 Topic Guide: Cities, Housing and Transport
Task 1 Structure · Task 2 Structure · Topic Guides · Writing Language · Band Score Samples · Practice Methods · Speaking & Study Tips
✦ Target Your Future
Some days you practise for hours and the score still does not move. I hope these notes remind you that the setbacks are part of the road: every recording you replayed, every essay you rewrote and every sentence you finally dared to say is progress you have already made.
I wrote this down so the next person can take fewer detours. You do not have to follow my method exactly. Find a rhythm that works for you, rest when you need to, and come back for the next small step.
I hope what you take away is more than a number on a score report: a little more confidence in yourself, and the courage to step a bit closer to the world.
— Ting
← Back to IELTS notes in English
Leave a Reply