Cambridge IELTS 21 Academic — Test 1 Writing Task 2: Full Analysis

An essay about the advantages of apartment living would not necessarily answer this question. Neither would a general complaint about overcrowded cities. The task makes a comparative claim about a particular way of providing housing, and your response must decide how far that claim holds.

In Cambridge IELTS 21 Academic, Test 1, the proposition is that constructing tall residential blocks is the most effective approach to supplying enough homes in large cities. Candidates must explain the extent of their agreement. This paraphrase identifies the task without reproducing the full prompt.¹

The ideas, example sentences and model essay below are original teaching material. Suggested scenarios are hypothetical illustrations, not reports of research or policies in named cities. The point is to learn how to develop an argument from a precise interpretation of the question.

What the question is really asking

A method, an objective and a comparison

The method is building tall apartment blocks. The objective is an adequate supply of homes in large cities. The comparison is the claim that this method is the best. A response should keep all three in view.

If you discuss only whether towers are attractive, you lose the housing objective. If you discuss only why cities need homes, you lose the proposed method. If you establish that towers can help but never consider whether they deserve priority, you leave the strongest part of the claim unanswered.

Best does not mean that your essay must survey every housing policy in existence. It does mean that usefulness alone is not a complete justification. You need some account of the relevant advantage, the conditions under which it holds, or why an alternative or combined approach is stronger.

What counts as providing enough homes?

The most direct concern is quantity: accommodating more households. Affordability, access and infrastructure become relevant when you explain how they affect whether the additional homes meet the city's needs. Do not assume that merely introducing these topics makes the paragraph relevant.

For example, a paragraph about expensive towers connects to the question if it explains that households facing a shortage may still be unable to obtain those homes. A paragraph about attractive views does not address supply unless you develop a convincing link. Relevance belongs to the reasoning, not just to the topic label.

Large cities are a meaningful condition

The urban setting makes land constraints and the use of limited sites especially useful lines of argument. Yet large cities differ. A city with little available central land presents a different planning problem from one with many vacant buildings or underused neighbourhood sites.

You can therefore qualify your position by context. That is not evasive if you explain what conditions change the judgment. It becomes evasive only when it replaces a decision with an unsupported claim that everything depends on everything else.

Question type: use the instruction, not a template

This is commonly described as an agree-or-disagree question, but the practical instruction is to state and support the extent of your agreement. You are not required to adopt an extreme position, give equal space to both sides or use a fixed number of advantages and disadvantages.

The official format requires at least 250 words for Task 2, recommends roughly 40 minutes, and gives this task greater weight than Task 1. The response should be connected prose, not a plan or bullet list. The plan below is preparation for that prose.²

A qualified position is often natural here because the claim is broad. You might accept high-rise construction as a strong option where land is particularly scarce while rejecting it as a universal priority. What matters is whether the body paragraphs support the exact position introduced.

Several defensible positions

Strong agreement with stated conditions

You could argue that vertical construction is the most effective principal strategy in densely developed cities because it adds many homes without requiring extensive new land. A strong version would acknowledge the need for supporting services and explain why those requirements do not undermine the central advantage.

This position should not claim that towers automatically solve affordability or that other forms of construction add no housing. Defending priority is different from denying that alternatives exist. The burden is to show why the land-use advantage outweighs the relevant limitations in the context you define.

Partial agreement

You could support tall residential buildings as an important part of the solution while arguing that adequate housing depends on a combination of density, price, location and services. The model follows this route. Its position is stable: towers can help considerably, but height alone does not justify calling them the best general solution.

Avoid announcing partial agreement and then writing an entirely one-sided attack. The agreement needs its own developed reason; the qualification needs an equally clear connection to the objective. The relationship between the two should be a judgment, not a numerical division of the essay into halves.

Substantial disagreement

You could argue that a broader strategy using moderate-density development, conversion and existing neighbourhood capacity is generally preferable. To answer fairly, acknowledge why tall blocks may be attractive, then explain why their limitations or the available alternatives weaken the claim of superiority.

Disagreement does not require proving that every tall building is harmful. That would be a much stronger and less defensible proposition than the question asks you to adopt. You are evaluating the claim of being best, not deciding whether the method should ever be used.

Brainstorming arguments that can be developed

Land efficiency

Main argument: building vertically can accommodate more households on a constrained site. Explanation: homes are placed on multiple floors rather than requiring separate plots at ground level. Consequence: a limited amount of available land may yield a substantial addition to supply.

Hypothetical example: an underused site near public transport could contain many more apartments than detached houses. Link to the question: the method is particularly persuasive where the difficulty is finding land in useful locations. Notice the condition. A comparison with detached houses does not prove that a tower outperforms every moderate-height alternative.

Affordability and the intended households

Main argument: a larger physical supply does not automatically meet the needs of people struggling to obtain housing. Explanation: if the homes are beyond those households' budgets, the development may not directly serve them. Consequence: judging a strategy only by building height can miss who gains access.

Hypothetical example: a district receives an expensive apartment development while households seeking lower-cost homes remain unable to rent there. Link to the question: enough homes must be considered in relation to the people and housing needs being discussed. Do not make the stronger unsupported claim that every expensive development has no possible wider effect on housing markets.

Infrastructure and location

Main argument: additional homes need to work within the surrounding city. Explanation: residents require access to transport and services. Consequence: a concentrated addition to population may create difficulties if the necessary capacity is absent.

Hypothetical example: a new development adds households in a location with inadequate transport connections. The point is not that density is inherently bad; it is that supply planning and service provision need to be considered together. A tower in a well-served location could support a different conclusion. That qualification strengthens the reasoning by defining its scope.

A wider set of options

Main argument: some cities have opportunities to add homes through conversion, unused sites or moderate-height development. Explanation: these approaches use different kinds of available space rather than relying on one building form. Consequence: a mixed strategy may respond more closely to local conditions.

Keep this paragraph selective. Listing six alternatives without explaining any of them is not development. Choose two or three related options and identify the principle connecting them. Nor should conversion be presented as effortless: it is useful only where the buildings are suitable and the practical requirements can be met.

A strong essay structure

The model uses five paragraphs. The introduction states the judgment. The first body paragraph explains why tall buildings can help. The second identifies why additional apartments may fail to meet the intended need. The third develops the case for a broader strategy. The conclusion states the resulting priority.

Five paragraphs are a choice for this argument, not an IELTS rule. A four-paragraph version could combine the limitations and alternative strategy if the paragraph remained coherent. The test is whether each paragraph has one clear purpose and whether their sequence leads to the announced judgment.

Do not give every paragraph a label such as advantage one in the actual essay. The reader should understand its role from its claim and development. Paragraphing makes the argument visible; it should not expose a memorised template.

Writing a concise introduction

An introduction needs enough context to establish the question and a clear statement of your position. It does not need a history of urbanisation, a claim that the issue has attracted heated debate, or a promise to examine everything before reaching a conclusion.

One possible opening is: “Tall residential buildings can add many homes where urban land is scarce. I therefore support their use in suitable locations, but I do not regard them as the best answer to every city's housing shortage.” This gives the accepted benefit and the limit of agreement.

A stronger-agreement opening could be: “In densely developed cities, accommodating more households on existing land is a central challenge. I consider tall apartment blocks the most effective main response, provided they are planned with adequate services and a suitable range of homes.” The qualification does not remove the clear preference.

A disagreement opening could be: “Building taller can increase housing capacity, but it addresses only one part of the problem. A strategy combining different forms of development with affordable provision is generally more effective than prioritising towers.” The body would then need to defend that comparative judgment.

Do not copy an opening whose position differs from the essay you can develop. A precise thesis is useful only if it functions as a commitment that the rest of the response fulfils.

Developing a body paragraph

Start with a claim, explain its mechanism, develop its consequence and use an example only when it clarifies the reasoning. Then make the connection to the question evident. These are functions, not five compulsory sentences.

Consider the weak claim “Tall buildings are good because they save space.” A stronger paragraph explains what saving space means: accommodating multiple households on one site. It then identifies where that advantage matters: scarce land near jobs or transport. A hypothetical contrast with detached homes makes the mechanism concrete, and a final sentence relates it to the urban shortage.

The paragraph becomes weaker if it suddenly turns to attractive views, modern architecture or the writer's childhood home. Those ideas may be interesting, but they do not develop the same claim. Paragraph unity means that each sentence contributes to the argument being made there.

An example does not need an invented study or a named country. A clearly hypothetical situation can be enough. “If a suitable site near a station is redeveloped…” is more honest than claiming that an unnamed university has proved a precise effect. Explain what would happen and why, rather than manufacturing authority.

Writing the conclusion

The conclusion should express the judgment that follows from the argument. For the model's position, tall blocks remain a valuable option, but the stronger general strategy combines appropriate density with access and services. That is a synthesis of the accepted benefit and its limits.

Do not introduce a new major argument about crime, pollution or family life in the final two sentences. It has not been developed. Nor should the conclusion suddenly move from qualified support to complete rejection. Check that the degree of agreement is consistent with the introduction.

A useful closing sentence identifies the governing principle: housing policy should be judged by the homes people can actually use, rather than by building height alone. This goes beyond mechanically repeating the opening while remaining within the argument already made.

Vocabulary for this question

Useful nouns include housing supply, household, residential development, vacant premises, infrastructure and affordability. They name distinct things. A household is a person or group living as a domestic unit; it is not always a family. A building may contain many homes, and infrastructure concerns the systems that support their use.

Density and height are related but not identical. A taller building can place more homes on a site, but the number of homes across an area also depends on layout, land use and occupancy. Avoid using high density as a decorative synonym for tall without considering the claim.

Useful verb patterns include accommodate households, expand supply, meet housing needs, convert premises into homes and depend on local conditions. Provide enough housing is natural; provide enough housings is not the ordinary mass-noun pattern. Housing is usually uncountable in this meaning, while homes and apartments are countable.

For evaluation, principal advantage, important option, general solution and compelling use of space express different strengths. Do not move from can contribute to will solve without an argument. Likewise, best means preferable to alternatives on relevant grounds; it is stronger than useful or popular.

Grammar for developing the argument

Conditionals help state the circumstances under which a claim holds: “If land is scarce, building upwards can increase the number of homes on a site.” The conditional should identify a meaningful condition, not provide grammatical decoration.

Concession preserves a benefit while qualifying the conclusion: “Although tall buildings can add capacity, their height does not guarantee that the homes will be affordable.” This is more precise than writing two apparently contradictory statements without explaining their relationship.

Relative clauses can define the group whose needs matter: “households that cannot afford the new apartments”. A noun clause can focus the criterion: “What matters is whether the additional homes meet local needs.” Use these structures when they clarify reference or emphasis, not because every paragraph is expected to contain one.

Modals control certainty. Can describes a potential contribution; may recognises an outcome that depends on circumstances; should expresses a recommendation. “Towers must solve housing shortages” would make an unjustified claim of necessity or certainty. A careful argument is not weaker because its grammar preserves conditions.

Common mistakes

One frequent mistake is answering whether apartments are enjoyable to live in instead of evaluating a method of supplying homes. Another is explaining housing shortages at length without returning to tall buildings. Check every paragraph against the proposed method and the objective.

An undeveloped argument often consists of a claim followed by a restatement: “Towers save land because they use less space.” Add the mechanism and the relevance of the saved land. Conversely, an overdeveloped example can consume a paragraph without making its general point clear.

Avoid a contradictory position. If the introduction calls towers the best solution, the conclusion cannot call them ineffective without explaining a change in the conditions. Nuance requires a stable framework, not a succession of incompatible assertions.

Memorised linking phrases do not create logic. Furthermore should add something that advances the same argument; therefore should introduce a conclusion that follows. Repeating such words at every sentence opening can make the organisation more mechanical without making the reasoning clearer.

Finally, avoid inflated vocabulary and overlong sentences. “Provide residential accommodation” is not automatically better than provide homes. A sentence combining affordability, transport, architecture and demographic change can lose its grammatical centre. Choose the shortest form that expresses the needed relationship accurately.

Original high-band model essay

The model aims for strong performance through a clear position, developed reasoning and controlled language. It has not received an official examiner score, and no particular essay can guarantee a candidate's result. The analysis that follows applies the official criteria to its choices.³

Building upwards can make a substantial contribution to housing supply in large cities. However, the number of homes created is not determined by height alone. I support tall apartment buildings where land is scarce, but do not consider them the best general solution to an urban housing shortage.

Their principal advantage is that many households can occupy a relatively small site. Replacing an underused building with a residential tower may add considerably more homes than constructing detached houses on the same land. Where that site is close to employment and public transport, the development may also allow more people to live within practical reach of work. In a densely built city with few vacant plots, this can be a compelling use of space.

Nevertheless, additional apartments do not necessarily meet the needs of those struggling to find housing. If a development consists entirely of expensive properties, it may do little for households unable to afford them. A city must therefore consider the price and type of homes, not simply the number of floors. The surrounding services matter too: adding residents without adequate transport, schools or water infrastructure can create problems that the housing plan has not addressed.

There may also be suitable ways to expand supply without relying on very tall buildings. Converting vacant commercial premises, developing unused sites at a moderate height and allowing additional homes in existing neighbourhoods can form part of a wider strategy. Their value depends on local conditions, but considering them together may make better use of the city's available space than treating towers as the default answer everywhere.

Tall apartment blocks are therefore an important option, especially where land is severely constrained. The stronger approach, however, is to combine appropriate density with affordable provision and the services residents need. The objective should be enough usable homes, rather than height for its own sake.

Why the model works

Introduction — A position with a clear boundary

The first paragraph accepts the contribution of vertical construction but rejects height as the decisive measure of an adequate strategy. This is not a vague statement that there are advantages and disadvantages. It tells the reader what is accepted and what is being challenged.

First body paragraph — Explain the real advantage

The land-use argument proceeds from site capacity to location and then to a context in which the benefit is especially persuasive. The comparison with detached houses illustrates one mechanism; it is not falsely presented as proof that towers beat every possible alternative.

Second body paragraph — Connect limitations to the objective

Affordability is linked directly to the households seeking homes. Services are then linked to whether a development works as housing within a city. The paragraph does not claim that every tall building is unaffordable or poorly serviced. Its point is that height does not settle those questions.

Third body paragraph — Make the comparative judgment credible

The alternatives are grouped under using available urban space in several ways. The qualifying phrase about local conditions prevents the paragraph from treating conversion or moderate-height construction as universally suitable. Together, the options support a mixed strategy rather than an unexplained dislike of towers.

Conclusion — State the resulting priority

The final paragraph preserves the initial qualified support. Appropriate density, affordability and services become the criteria for judging the strategy. The last sentence expresses the purpose that links the whole response: usable homes are the objective; height is one possible means.

Assessment through the four criteria

Task Response depends on answering the claim of superiority, not simply discussing the topic. The model's position is developed through an accepted advantage, relevant limitations and alternatives. Coherence and Cohesion are supported by the order of those functions and by references that keep the subject clear.

Lexical Resource appears in accurate combinations such as housing supply, vacant commercial premises and local conditions. The language is varied without making ordinary ideas unnecessarily grand. Grammatical Range and Accuracy come from controlled clauses expressing conditions, contrast and consequences, alongside direct statements. The response demonstrates choices within the official criteria; it is not a recipe in which individual phrases earn points.³

How to use this model for practice

Do not memorise the essay. First, reduce it to an argument map: accepted benefit, limit, alternative, judgment. Then write a different plan defending stronger agreement or greater disagreement. This tests whether you understand the question rather than one prepared answer.

Next, write one body paragraph using the same idea with a different example. Check that the explanation still leads to the claim and that the example remains hypothetical unless you have reliable facts. Underline any sentence that introduces a new topic without developing it.

Finally, write a complete response under a realistic time limit. On review, compare the introduction with the conclusion, identify the purpose of each paragraph and test every broad claim for missing conditions. A persuasive answer is built from a position you can explain, not from language you hope will impress.

For related language work, see argument and evidence vocabulary and conditionals and qualification in the grammar guide.