Some people think that cities should limit the number of cars allowed into the centre. Others believe such restrictions unfairly punish people who have no alternative.
A full IELTS Writing Task 2 answer to this question, with a paragraph plan, ideas you can use, and the vocabulary that fits this topic.
The question
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Some people think that cities should limit the number of cars allowed into the centre. Others believe such restrictions unfairly punish people who have no alternative.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
How to read this question
The opposing view in this question is usually summarised as "it is unfair", which is too vague to argue with. The strongest version is specific: restrictions fall hardest on people who cannot choose an alternative — tradespeople carrying tools, shift workers travelling when transport does not run, disabled drivers. An essay that engages with that version rather than a generic complaint about inconvenience will read as considerably more thoughtful.
Paragraph plan
Introduction — Paraphrase both views, then state a position: restrictions work and are justified, but only where an alternative genuinely exists first.
Body 1 — The case for limits — road space is finite so demand expands to fill it, and the health and economic costs fall on people who do not drive.
Body 2 — The case against — the burden is regressive and falls on those with no substitute, and restrictions imposed before transport improves punish rather than redirect.
Conclusion — Support restrictions, sequenced after investment, with exemptions defined by necessity rather than ability to pay.
Model essay
Band 8.5–9.0 model essay
329 words
According to some, cities ought to limit the number of vehicles permitted into their centres, while others insist that such measures unfairly disadvantage those who have no realistic alternative to driving. In my view, restricting car access can yield considerable benefits for urban centres, but this policy should not be enforced unless affordable transport alternatives are made available to everyone.
On the one hand, proponents of restricting car access maintain that this measure can substantially improve the quality of urban life. To clarify, when fewer vehicles circulate through the centre, both traffic congestion and vehicle emissions decline markedly, allowing pedestrians to walk through cleaner and quieter streets. For instance, several European cities that have introduced low-emission zones have reported a noticeable reduction in respiratory illnesses among residents, alongside a revival of street-level commerce once dominated by parked cars.
On the other hand, critics argue that such restrictions disproportionately burden individuals who depend on cars out of necessity rather than preference. To illustrate, tradespeople who must transport heavy equipment, or residents of outlying districts poorly served by buses and trains, are left with no practical means of reaching the centre once restrictions are imposed. For these groups, the policy effectively curtails their access to employment and essential services, regardless of their genuine lack of choice.
From my perspective, restricting vehicle access is justified only when accompanied by adequate compensatory measures. To explain, before any limitation is introduced, authorities should expand bus and rail networks into underserved districts and grant exemptions to tradespeople and residents with mobility impairments. Once such alternatives exist, the majority of commuters would no longer be forced into private car use, and restrictions could then be implemented without unfairly penalising the minority who genuinely lack other options.
To conclude, despite differing opinions on whether cities should limit car access, I am convinced that this policy can be justified, provided that authorities first guarantee reliable transport alternatives and targeted exemptions for those who would otherwise be unfairly disadvantaged.
Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to read the rest of this essay and unlock every model on the site.
This is a discussion (discuss both views) question. The essay above shows you what a strong answer looks like when it is finished. What it cannot show you is how to get there from a blank page in forty minutes.
That is what our Writing Study Library is for: the structure we teach for this exact question type, the paragraph pattern that goes with it, and the sentence openers for each stage — so the essay is planned before you start writing rather than assembled as you go.
Introduction: Paraphrase both views on restricting city-centre car access and state the conditional opinion that restrictions help, but only alongside real alternatives.
Body 1: Argue that limiting cars in the centre reduces congestion and emissions and improves pedestrian life, illustrated by European low-emission zones cutting respiratory illness.
Body 2: Argue that restrictions unfairly punish tradespeople and residents of poorly served outlying districts who have no practical way to reach the centre without a car.
Body 3: State that restrictions are only fair once authorities expand public transport into underserved areas and grant exemptions to those with genuine need.
Conclusion: Restate that car restrictions are justified only when paired with reliable alternatives and targeted exemptions.
Word or phrase
Meaning
Used in a sentence
congestion
traffic that is so heavy it slows or blocks movement
both traffic congestion and vehicle emissions decline markedly
vehicle emissions
the gases released into the air by cars and other vehicles
both traffic congestion and vehicle emissions decline markedly
low-emission zones
areas where polluting vehicles are restricted or charged to enter
several European cities that have introduced low-emission zones have reported a noticeable reduction in respiratory illnesses
disproportionately burden
to place an unfairly large share of a hardship on a particular group
such restrictions disproportionately burden individuals who depend on cars out of necessity rather than preference
curtails
reduces or restricts something
the policy effectively curtails their access to employment and essential services
compensatory measures
actions taken to offset or make up for a disadvantage caused by a policy
restricting vehicle access is justified only when accompanied by adequate compensatory measures
underserved districts
areas that do not receive an adequate level of a public service
authorities should expand bus and rail networks into underserved districts
exemptions
official permissions to be excused from a rule that applies to others
grant exemptions to tradespeople and residents with mobility impairments
Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to see the ideas and vocabulary for this topic and unlock every model on the site.
Answers checked here may be published on this page, without your name, to help other learners. Nothing else about you is stored.
Common questions
How do I make the opposing view stronger than a vague complaint?
Name specific people and say why the alternative does not work for them — a plumber with tools, a night-shift worker, a disabled driver. Specificity is what turns a straw man into a real objection, and answering a real objection is what Band 8 Task Response looks like.
Is it acceptable to support a policy while criticising how it is done?
Yes, and it is one of the most useful positions available. "I support this, but the usual sequence is wrong" gives you a clear stance and an argument, and it lets you take the opposition seriously without abandoning your side.
Do I need technical terms like "induced demand"?
No — you can express the same idea plainly: new roads attract new journeys, so traffic returns. Use the term only if you are confident of it. A precise plain phrase always beats a technical one used slightly wrongly.
Should I write about my own city?
Only if you explain the mechanism rather than just naming the place. "In my city they did this and it worked" adds nothing an examiner can credit; describing what changed and why it changed does.
