Discussion decision 1
Recognise the three-part task
A discussion prompt normally presents two contrasting positions and asks you to discuss both views and give your opinion. Those words create three obligations: explain why reasonable people support the first view, explain the reasoning behind the second, and communicate your own considered judgement. This differs from an opinion essay, where one proposition is tested, and from an advantages task, where the organising categories are benefits and costs. Preserve the actual actors and beliefs in the prompt. IELTS Writing Task 2 still requires at least 250 words of connected text, clear organisation, relevant development and accurate language. Public descriptors emphasise complete task coverage and a clear position; polished vocabulary cannot compensate for an omitted view.
Discuss both named views and give your opinion; answering only the topic is not complete task coverage.
| Obligation | Evidence in the essay | Common failure |
|---|---|---|
| View A | Reason, mechanism and illustration | A label followed by criticism |
| View B | Independent, fair development | A token sentence |
| Opinion | Criterion and consistent judgement | Both are important |
Discussion decision 2
Protect all three jobs in the plan
Before generating examples, draw three boxes labelled VIEW A, VIEW B and MY JUDGEMENT. Put one complete claim in each. This simple move prevents your preferred view from consuming the essay. Your opinion may support one view, combine parts of both, or offer a conditional alternative, but it must say what should carry most weight and why. Balance does not require identical word counts. It means neither required perspective is treated as a slogan. If one idea is simpler, fewer sentences may explain it fully. If your evaluation is woven through both view paragraphs, attribution must still distinguish other people's reasoning from your voice. Fair explanation demonstrates understanding; it does not require neutrality.
You may explain a view accurately and still reject it after evaluation.
Discussion decision 3
How to explain a view you do not personally support
When a view seems weak, use this original perspective lens. PEOPLE asks who would reasonably support the view. PRIORITY identifies what they value most, such as fairness, safety, freedom, efficiency, cost or long-term development. PAYOFF explains how the proposed action produces that outcome. Add a plausible illustrative consequence, then pressure-test the view by identifying a condition or limitation. Suppose one side supports public funding for transport while another favours user fares. Public-funding supporters may prioritise access and reduced congestion: affordable buses give low-income commuters a realistic alternative to cars. Fare supporters may prioritise financial sustainability: predictable revenue can maintain frequent routes without competing entirely with hospitals and schools. Both chains are intelligible before you decide.
Discussion decision 4
Choose structure by paragraph purpose
A practical structure uses an introduction, one paragraph for each view, and a conclusion containing the judgement. State your opinion in the introduction so the reader has a compass, then reinforce it through evaluation. A separate opinion paragraph can work when your judgement differs substantially from both views, but it must develop new reasoning rather than repeat the thesis. Avoid memorised announcements such as 'This essay will discuss both views.' Clarify the real contrast instead. For a transport prompt, a useful thesis could say that universal free travel improves access but targeted subsidies better protect vulnerable passengers while preserving operating income. The structure follows that judgement: access reasoning, sustainability reasoning, then comparison through fairness and feasibility.
Give both perspectives a fair chain, then choose the decisive criterion.
Discussion decision 5
Develop views before evaluating them
Begin a view paragraph with attribution: supporters of this approach argue, those who favour it prioritise, or from this perspective. Then explain the mechanism. Do not interrupt every sentence with I disagree. A thin paragraph says users should pay because transport costs money. A developed paragraph says fare supporters value reliable services; ticket revenue can fund maintenance and less popular routes without relying wholly on changing public budgets. An illustrative network might replace ageing vehicles because it has predictable income. Only after that explanation should evaluation appear: the model is sustainable only if concessions protect passengers who cannot afford full fares. Evaluation uses a criterion and boundary rather than announcing preference.
Discussion decision 6
Compare with a decisive criterion
Your opinion becomes convincing when it evaluates both views on the same basis. Choose a criterion relevant to the question: reach, fairness, feasibility, cost, freedom, safety, long-term effect or environmental impact. Do not praise one side for affordability and reject the other for convenience without showing how those standards relate. Ask which consequence affects more people, which approach addresses the underlying cause, and which can operate under realistic conditions. A synthesis may emerge: one view supplies the goal while the other supplies the workable method. That is not indecision. It is a judgement when you clearly explain which principle leads and what conditions prevent the compromise from becoming vague.
Discussion decision 7
Keep voices distinct through language
Attribution language signals that you are explaining another perspective: supporters contend, advocates prioritise, or this view rests on the assumption that. Evaluation language signals your judgement: on balance, the more convincing consideration is, this argument works only where, or this addresses the immediate problem but not its cause. Use connectors only for genuine relationships. Although introduces concession, because a cause, therefore a result and provided that a condition. Grammar can carry the reasoning: 'Although later language instruction may be efficient, early exposure offers more time'; 'User funding can work if reduced fares protect low-income passengers.' Accurate, purposeful complexity is more valuable than decorative sentences.
Discussion decision 8
Practise perspective-taking separately
Full essays are necessary, but targeted drills repair weak reasoning faster. Take five prompts and complete only a three-box plan: first view, second view and your judgement. For each view, identify who supports it, what they value and the likely result, then choose one fair basis for comparison. Next, write the strongest paragraph for the view you personally oppose without sarcasm or exaggeration. Finally, complete a timed response and review whether all three obligations received real development.
Discussion decision 9
Turn notes into developed discussion
A planning note such as cheaper is not yet an argument. Name what becomes cheaper, for whom, through what mechanism, and with what consequence. If remote services reduce building costs, explain whether the saving reaches users or simply changes a provider's budget. If smaller classes improve learning, explain how additional teacher attention changes feedback or participation. Development means making the causal chain visible, not adding an unrelated reason whenever a paragraph feels short. One reason can support several sentences when you define it, explain it, illustrate it and evaluate its limits. Use examples after the mechanism. An invented statistic creates an unsupported claim, while a transparent illustrative scenario makes reasoning concrete. A rural patient using a remote consultation can show how digital access reduces travel, but it does not prove every appointment should be online. State what an example demonstrates and where it stops.
Discussion decision 10
Control the response under exam conditions
Widely accepted preparation advice is to reserve a few minutes for analysis and planning rather than drafting immediately. Identify the two views, explain the people, priority and likely result behind each, choose the criterion governing your opinion, and assign each explanation to a paragraph. Draft topic sentences from complete claims, not single-word labels. During checking, reread the exact instruction before correcting small language errors. Confirm that both views and your judgement are visible, each paragraph has a distinct purpose, and examples genuinely support the reasoning.
Discussion decision 11
Evaluate weak and improved planning
A weak plan records View A: convenient, View B: expensive, Opinion: both. These fragments do not identify who benefits, why cost changes, or which outcome decides the question. Improve them as complete claims. View A might argue that flexible provision expands access for workers because recorded material removes schedule barriers. View B might argue that direct provision protects interaction because immediate questions expose misunderstanding. The judgement can then compare access with learning quality and propose the condition under which flexibility should lead. This improved plan is longer than three labels but still brief enough to create quickly. It prevents repetition because each paragraph has a different mechanism, and it gives the conclusion a real comparison to synthesise. When reviewing your own plan, underline the actor, priority, mechanism and criterion in different colours. Any missing element signals where development may collapse during drafting.
Worked example
Balance two views without losing your opinion
Consider this illustrative prompt: some people think children should begin learning a foreign language in primary school, while others believe secondary school is better. Discuss both views and give your opinion. She prefers an early start and initially writes three reasons for it but only “older students learn faster” for the other perspective. Using the later-start view can still be reconstructed fairly. Secondary teachers may prioritise efficient formal instruction because older learners have stronger literacy, study habits and grammatical awareness. The payoff is faster explicit progress with fewer timetable pressures in primary education.
View A Early exposure builds sound awareness and confidence through low-pressure practice.
View B Older learners use literacy and analytical skills to progress deliberately.
Criterion Long-term opportunity matters more than short-term teaching efficiency.
Opinion Start early with communication, then add systematic study later.
Her first paragraph explains how games and regular interaction can build comfort without advanced grammar. Her second fairly explains why adolescents may progress quickly. Her evaluation compares the views: later efficiency is valuable, but it cannot fully replace years of gradual exposure. Her conclusion says that although older learners can study analytically, age-appropriate primary exposure offers more time for confidence and listening to develop, with systematic instruction added later. The opinion combines the strongest insight from both perspectives while still choosing a leading principle.
Remove “some people” and “others.” If each paragraph still contains reasoning a sensible person could defend, you have discussed rather than merely reported.
Final control
Check the three obligations
- Did I discuss both named views and give my opinion?
- Is each view represented fairly?
- Does each contain a mechanism and illustration?
- Did I compare them using a clear criterion?
- Can readers distinguish attributed views from my voice?
- Does each paragraph have one purpose?
- Is my judgement consistent?
- Are examples honestly illustrative?
- Are connectors and sentence boundaries accurate?
- Is the response connected prose of at least 250 words?
Discussion essay FAQs
Must I agree with one view?
No. You may support one, combine elements, or offer a qualified alternative, provided you evaluate the issue directly.
Do views need equal word counts?
No fixed equality applies. Both need sufficient explanation; complexity may affect length.
Can I criticise a view in its paragraph?
Yes, after explaining it fairly and clearly signalling the move to evaluation.
Do I need a separate opinion paragraph?
Not necessarily. Integrate evaluation or use a separate paragraph only when it adds substantial reasoning.
How many examples?
No official number applies. Use enough relevant illustration to make the main reasoning concrete.
Official sources
Write a fair discussion and a decisive conclusion
Explain each perspective on its own terms, compare one criterion and keep your judgement visible.