How to write an argumentative essay on metro versus buses for your city
This is a policy essay, and policy essays have a trick: name your criteria in the introduction, then judge both options against each one. The brief hands you the criteria (cost, coverage and who benefits). Use them as the skeleton and this essay becomes very hard to write badly.
The task
The briefYour city has a fixed transport budget and must choose between extending the metro and expanding the bus fleet with dedicated lanes. Write an argumentative essay recommending one, using cost, coverage and who benefits as your criteria.
A general reader of a city newspaper.
Name the criteria you will judge the options against
Make an explicit recommendation
Compare both options against the criteria, not just your preferred one
Say who is worse off under your recommendation
Length
250–330 words
Suggested time
35 minutes
Level
Medium
Planning tip: Name your criteria in the introduction and then judge both options against them. An essay with explicit criteria is almost impossible to write badly.
What a strong answer does
The criteria are named in the introduction and used, in order, to organise the body.
Both options are judged against every criterion, not just the one you prefer.
The facts are general and defensible: metro lines cost far more per kilometre and take years to build; buses with dedicated lanes can be rolled out faster and reach more neighbourhoods; a metro moves many more people per hour along one busy corridor. No invented exact figures.
‘Who benefits’ is concrete: commuters on one corridor, people in outer neighbourhoods, people travelling late at night, students, people who cannot afford higher fares.
There is an explicit recommendation, and an honest statement of who is worse off under it.
It works for any city. If you write about your own, a real place adds credibility, whether that is Lagos, Jakarta, Bogotá, Pune or Manchester.
How to structure it
- 1
Introduction
45–60 wordsThe choice, your three criteria, and your recommendation.
- 2
Criterion 1: cost
50–65 wordsCompare both options on cost: building, running, and time to deliver.
- 3
Criterion 2: coverage
50–65 wordsCompare reach: how many neighbourhoods and people each option serves.
- 4
Criterion 3: who benefits, and who is worse off
55–70 wordsCompare the beneficiaries, then say who loses under your recommendation.
- 5
Conclusion
35–50 wordsThe recommendation, justified by the criteria, with one condition or safeguard.
Useful phrases
Frames, not finished sentences: put your own details where the [brackets] are, and use only the ones that fit what you are saying.
Setting out criteria
- I will judge the two options on three criteria: [criterion], [criterion] and [criterion].
- On each of these, [option] comes out ahead, though not by the same margin.
Comparing
- On cost, [option] has a clear advantage: [reason].
- [Other option], by contrast, [comparison].
- The two options are closest on [criterion].
Who benefits
- A new metro line mainly serves [group] along [corridor].
- A larger bus network would reach [group], who [situation].
Who is worse off
- Under my recommendation, [group] would lose out, because [reason].
- To limit that cost, the city could [measure].
Recommending
- On balance, the city should spend this budget on [option].
- This recommendation holds only if [condition].
Common mistakes, and how to fix them
Judging only the option you prefer.
The brief requires both options to be compared against the criteria. Praising buses without assessing the metro on the same terms is half an essay.
Fix: For each criterion, write one sentence on each option, then give your verdict.
Forgetting the criteria after the introduction.
Naming three criteria and then writing a general essay throws away the structure that would have organised it.
Fix: Open each body paragraph with the name of its criterion.
Invented precise figures.
A number such as ‘exactly $350 million per kilometre’ cannot be supported here, and a wrong figure costs credibility.
Fix: Use defensible comparisons: ‘far more per kilometre’, ‘years rather than months’.
Pretending nobody is worse off.
The brief asks who loses under your recommendation. Every budget choice has losers, and ignoring them looks naive.
Fix: Name the group and, ideally, a safeguard.
A recommendation that avoids the choice: ‘The city should do both.’
The budget is fixed, so ‘both’ dodges the question.
Fix: Choose one. If you want a mix, give the split and defend it as your recommendation.
Article errors with places and systems: ‘the Lagos’, ‘metro is expensive’, ‘bus is cheaper’.
Articles with institutions and systems are hard for speakers of article-free languages (Hindi, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean) and for those whose languages use them differently (Spanish, French, Arabic).
Fix: Write ‘Lagos’, ‘the metro’, and ‘buses are cheaper’ or ‘a bus network is cheaper’.
Before you submit: a self-check
Have you named your criteria in the introduction?
Have you judged both options against every criterion?
Is there an explicit recommendation?
Have you said who is worse off under it?
Have you avoided precise figures you cannot support?
Is it within 250–330 words?
Questions people ask
How do I write a policy essay comparing two options?
Name your criteria in the introduction, then give one paragraph to each criterion and judge both options in it. Finish with a recommendation that follows from the comparison and a note on who loses. The criteria do the organising for you.
Do I need statistics in a transport essay?
No. Readers accept well-known general comparisons, such as metro systems being much more expensive and slower to build while buses are flexible and cheaper. Invented precise figures do more harm than good. If you know a real figure for your own city, use it carefully.
Can I recommend a mix of metro and buses?
Only if you defend a specific split as your recommendation and show that it beats spending everything on one option. ‘A bit of both’ without a reason reads as avoiding the choice.
Is this good practice for IELTS Writing Task 2?
Yes. Government spending and city transport are common Task 2 topics, and weighing two options against clear criteria also works for ‘discuss both views and give your opinion’ questions.
Argue: should your city spend on metro or on buses?
250–330 words · 35 minutes · Medium. Free to start; you need a TalkDrill account to submit, not to read this guide.
Scored by AI on TalkDrill on
- Task response25%
- Organisation20%
- Grammar20%
- Vocabulary15%
- Mechanics (spelling and punctuation)10%
- Tone10%
