Cambridge IELTS 12 Test 3 Writing Task 2: High-Speed Rail
Cambridge IELTS 12 · Test 3 · Academic Writing Task 2Discuss both viewsSociety
The question presents two views on transport spending: that large sums should be spent on new railway lines for very fast trains between cities, and that the money should instead be used to improve existing public transport. Candidates must discuss both views and give their own opinion.
The question
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. Write at least 250 words.
Free and timed, with a live word count, just like the computer-delivered test. Then get an instant AI band score.
The exam simulator runs on a computer. Open this page on a laptop or desktop to practise.
How to read the question
- This is a discussion essay: discuss both views and give your own opinion means you must explain both sides and state where you stand, ideally in the introduction and the conclusion.
- The first view is specifically about new high-speed railway lines between cities, so talk about intercity travel, not metro systems within a city.
- The second view is about improving existing public transport, which includes buses, local trains, trams and the metro that most people use every day.
- The key word is money: the debate is about how limited public funds should be prioritised, so arguments about cost, value and who benefits are central.
- A partial or conditional opinion is acceptable, for example prioritising existing services while supporting high-speed lines on the busiest routes, but it must be clear.
- Avoid general essays about cars versus public transport or about traffic pollution unless you link the point directly to one of the two views.
Suggested position
While high-speed rail can bring major long-term benefits, I believe that in most countries improving the public transport people use every day should come first, because it benefits far more citizens for the same investment.
Paragraph plan
- 1
Introduction
Paraphrase the debate between building expensive high-speed lines between cities and upgrading existing public transport, then state your position: existing networks should generally be the priority.
- 2
Body paragraph 1: the case for high-speed rail
Explain that fast trains cut journey times dramatically, can replace short-haul flights and so reduce emissions, and help spread economic growth to smaller cities. Use examples such as Japan's Shinkansen or China's high-speed network.
- 3
Body paragraph 2: the case for existing public transport
Explain that most journeys are short and local, so investment in buses, commuter trains and metros benefits millions of daily users, especially lower-income people. Point out that high-speed projects are extremely expensive, often go over budget and mainly serve business travellers.
- 4
Conclusion
Restate your view: improve everyday services first, and build high-speed lines only on routes with very high demand once local networks are reliable.
Ideas and arguments
- For high-speed rail: it shortens journeys between major cities, for example from several hours to under two, making business and tourism easier.
- For high-speed rail: fast trains can replace domestic flights, cutting carbon emissions and airport congestion.
- For high-speed rail: better links can spread investment and jobs from the capital to regional cities.
- For high-speed rail: examples such as the Shinkansen in Japan and the network in China show that such lines can be heavily used.
- For existing transport: the great majority of trips are local commutes, so upgrades help far more people every day.
- For existing transport: cheap, reliable buses and metros matter most to students, older people and those on low incomes.
- For existing transport: high-speed projects are extremely costly and often run far over budget and behind schedule.
- For existing transport: improving local services reduces car use and traffic congestion in cities, which affects everyone.
Band 8+ model answer
281 words · An original model answer written for ieltswrites, not an official answer. It stays in English, as in the exam.
In many countries, there is debate over whether governments should spend vast sums on new high-speed railway lines between cities or use that money to improve existing public transport. Although fast intercity trains have clear benefits, I believe that upgrading the services people rely on every day should generally be the priority.
Supporters of high-speed rail point out that it can transform travel between major cities. Japan's Shinkansen, for instance, has made it possible to travel between distant cities in a few hours, and similar networks in China and Europe have attracted millions of passengers. Because these trains can replace many short-haul flights, they may also reduce carbon emissions and congestion at airports. In addition, faster connections can encourage businesses to invest in regional cities rather than concentrating everything in the capital.
However, the case for improving existing public transport is, in my view, stronger. The vast majority of journeys are short trips to work, school or the shops, so investment in buses, commuter trains and metro systems benefits a far larger number of people. This is especially important for students, older people and those on low incomes, who depend on affordable and reliable local services. By contrast, high-speed projects are notoriously expensive, frequently run over budget and mainly serve business travellers who can already afford other options. If local networks are overcrowded and unreliable, a gleaming new intercity line does little for ordinary citizens.
In conclusion, both types of investment have merit, but public funds should first be used to make everyday transport efficient and accessible. Once that is achieved, high-speed lines can be justified on the busiest routes, where demand is high enough to offer genuine value for money.
Why this answer scores highly
- Task Response
- Both views are explained with relevant examples, and the writer's position, that everyday public transport should usually come first, is clear from the introduction and is supported with a cost and benefit argument.
- Coherence and Cohesion
- Each body paragraph presents one view, and the second paragraph builds towards the writer's opinion; cohesive devices such as admittedly, however and for this reason are used accurately and not overused.
- Lexical Resource
- Topic vocabulary such as intercity travel, short-haul flights, infrastructure and run over budget is used precisely, alongside evaluative language like value for money and a far larger number of people.
- Grammatical Range and Accuracy
- The answer combines conditionals, comparative structures, relative clauses and passive forms accurately, giving a range of complex sentences with very few errors.
Useful vocabulary
- high-speed rail
- train services that travel much faster than ordinary trains, usually over 250 km per hour
- intercity travel
- journeys between different cities
- infrastructure
- the basic systems a country needs, such as roads, railways and power supplies
- commuters
- people who travel regularly between home and work
- short-haul flights
- flights covering relatively short distances
- journey times
- how long it takes to travel from one place to another
- public funds
- money belonging to the government, raised from taxes
- run over budget
- cost more than was planned
- value for money
- a good return for the amount spent
- traffic congestion
- heavy traffic that causes delays
- reliable and affordable
- dependable and cheap enough for ordinary people
- regional economies
- the economies of areas outside the main cities
- prioritise
- decide that something is more important and deal with it first
Common mistakes
- Writing about building any new railway or about metro systems inside a city, when the first view concerns very fast trains between cities.
- Discussing only one view or giving no clear opinion, which limits Task Response for a discussion essay.
- Turning the essay into a general argument about cars and pollution without linking it to the spending choice in the question.
- Using exaggerated, unsupported claims such as high-speed trains are useless, rather than reasoned arguments about cost and benefit.
- Forgetting the money aspect of the question, so the essay never weighs costs against benefits.
- Changing position between the introduction and the conclusion.
Frequently asked questions
- Which Cambridge book is this question from?
- This essay question about spending money on high-speed railways or on existing public transport is Writing Task 2 of Test 3 in Cambridge IELTS 12 Academic, published in 2017.
- Can I agree with both views?
- Yes, a balanced opinion is acceptable, but it must still be clear, for example that existing transport should come first and high-speed lines should be built only on the busiest routes.
- Should I mention real high-speed rail examples?
- Brief, accurate examples such as Japan's Shinkansen help support your ideas, but avoid precise statistics unless you are sure of them.
- How many words should I write?
- Write at least 250 words; around 270 to 310 words is enough to develop both views and your opinion in 40 minutes.
Free and timed, with a live word count, just like the computer-delivered test. Then get an instant AI band score.
The exam simulator runs on a computer. Open this page on a laptop or desktop to practise.