🔶 Part 1 — Tutorial

Step 1 — Analyse the task & choose a position (Agree/Disagree)

Read the prompt twice and confirm the question type: it asks, “To what extent do you agree or disagree?” about whether university education should be free for everyone, regardless of income. Identify the topic scope (tuition at public universities; possible effects on access, quality, and finance) and define key terms so your argument stays precise. Clarify that “free” usually means tuition-free at the point of use rather than cost-free overall, because someone still funds the system through taxes or other mechanisms. Map the stakeholders: students and families, universities and staff, taxpayers and governments, and the wider economy and society. Generate two or three workable reasons you can develop in 3–4 sentences each, such as promoting social mobility, boosting national productivity, or protecting academic quality through sustainable funding. Consider counter-arguments early: potential strain on public budgets, overcrowding, longer completion times, or risk of underfunding labs and libraries. Decide your stance along a clear spectrum—complete agreement, strong agreement with conditions (e.g., tuition-free for first degrees), partial agreement (e.g., means-tested or capped), or disagreement in favour of targeted subsidies and graduate repayment. Avoid being vague: a balanced position is fine, but it must be traceable through every paragraph. Choose examples you can explain briefly, such as a scenario where a low-income learner enters a degree due to removed tuition barriers, or a case where poor funding erodes teaching quality. Note your assumptions (e.g., efficient tax use; fair admissions) so you can manage them explicitly. Finally, commit to one thesis that you can defend consistently across the essay.

Example Box — Decoding the Prompt

Prompt: “University education should be free for everyone, regardless of income. To what extent do you agree or disagree?”
Focus: Whether tuition should be zero at the point of study; degree of agreement; reasons and realistic illustrations.
Possible stances: (A) Strongly agree: tuition-free improves access and long-term growth. (B) Largely agree with guardrails: first degree free; postgraduate or repeat years not free. (C) Partly agree: means-tested or graduate-contribution models are fairer. (D) Disagree: targeted scholarships and income-contingent loans protect both access and quality better than blanket free tuition.

Step 2 — Plan a clear structure & argument flow

Use a compact four-paragraph structure to control your ideas. The introduction should paraphrase the statement in one sentence and present a decisive thesis in the next, signalling your extent of agreement. In Body 1, give your strongest reason first, such as expanding equity and social mobility when tuition barriers are removed; then explain the mechanism (how zero tuition changes decisions for low-income students) and add a plausible micro-example. In Body 2, develop a second reason or handle a counter-argument using concession-turn structure: acknowledge concerns about cost or quality, then show how policy design (e.g., graduate contributions, caps, or targeted funding) can address them. Keep each paragraph focused with a topic sentence that directly answers the question; follow with reason → explanation → example → link-back. Use cohesive devices sparingly and rely on reference chains (“this policy”, “such schemes”) to avoid repetitive linkers. The conclusion restates your position in new words and synthesises your reasons without adding new claims. Aim for around 270–310 words to allow depth without padding. Plan for timing: 7–9 minutes to analyse and outline, ~28 minutes to write, and ~3 minutes to check accuracy and coherence. If you take a balanced view, state the conditions explicitly so the examiner can follow your line of reasoning from start to finish.

Example Box — Skeleton Plan (Tuition-Free University)

Intro: Paraphrase + thesis (e.g., “I largely agree that undergraduate tuition should be free, provided funding protects teaching quality.”)
Body 1 (Reason 1): Equity & social mobility: tuition fees deter capable students from low-income families → micro-example (student accepts offer because costs at point of study are removed).
Body 2 (Reason 2 + concession): Economic returns/public interest but risk of underfunding; mitigation via stable public finance, graduate tax, or caps on repeat years → micro-example (ring-fenced teaching grants).
Conclusion: Restate extent; free tuition can widen participation if quality is safeguarded.

Step 3 — Write high-impact paragraphs

Keep your introduction lean: one sentence to rephrase the claim and one sentence to give your stance with two preview reasons. For Body 1, start with a topic sentence that answers the task and names your focus (e.g., “Tuition-free entry reduces financial barriers and strengthens social mobility”). Explain how upfront fees shape behaviour, especially for first-generation students, and add a micro-example that is realistic but concise. In Body 2, continue your case or address the other side: concede that fully free systems can strain budgets or lead to overcrowding, then pivot to design choices—stable funding, performance-based grants, or modest graduate contributions—to keep standards high. Use precise lexis such as tuition fees, means-tested support, graduate repayment, public subsidy, completion rates, learning resources, and academic standards. Vary sentence structure, but keep control of punctuation and modifiers. Avoid grand claims you cannot support; focus on causal links that show how policy translates into outcomes for students and universities. Close with a conclusion that re-answers the question clearly and synthesises your reasons, not a new idea. This approach demonstrates coherence, development, and a consistent stance, which are central to high band scores.

Example Box — High-impact Sentences (Tuition-Free)

Thesis (balanced agree): “I largely agree that undergraduate tuition should be free, provided funding models protect teaching quality and completion.”
Topic sentence (Body 1): “Removing upfront fees widens access because financial barriers discourage capable students from applying or persisting.”
Micro-example: “For instance, a low-income applicant may accept a place once tuition is waived and living-cost support is predictable.”
Conclusion line: “Overall, tuition-free entry can expand participation if safeguards ensure resources match enrolment.”

Step 4 — Language, coherence, and accuracy

Select topic-appropriate lexis such as tuition fees, public subsidy, means-tested grants, graduate contribution, social mobility, academic standards, and ring-fenced funding. Build cohesion by using reference chains (“this policy”, “such funding”, “these safeguards”) instead of repeating long phrases. Keep paragraphs unified around a controlling idea and avoid list-like development; aim for reason → explanation → example → link-back. Hedge reasonably (“tends to”, “can”, “is likely to”) when discussing complex systems. Watch frequent errors: articles with abstract nouns, subject–verb agreement in long sentences, and misused linkers (“hence” vs “therefore”). Maintain a formal register and avoid emotive language. In your final check, ensure your topic sentences directly address the prompt and that your conclusion clearly states the extent of agreement in fresh wording. Accuracy and clarity in these areas significantly strengthen Task Response, Coherence & Cohesion, and Grammatical Range & Accuracy.

Example Box — Quality Checks (Quick List)

Clarity: Does each topic sentence answer the question about free tuition?
Development: Is there a reason → explanation → example chain in each body paragraph?
Cohesion: Are reference words used naturally instead of overusing linkers?
Lexis: Are funding/education terms precise and consistent?
Accuracy: Are complex sentences punctuated cleanly and error-free?

Universal Fill-in-the-Gap Template — Opinion (Agree/Disagree)

Adapt carefully to the tuition-free prompt. Replace […] with your ideas. Keep sentences concise and purposeful.

Sentence-by-Sentence Scaffold (Tuition-Free University)

Intro S1 (Paraphrase): Many argue that universities should charge no tuition so that all students can study, regardless of family income.

Intro S2 (Thesis): I [completely/largely/partly] [agree/disagree] with free tuition because [Reason 1] and [Reason 2].

Body 1 S3 (Topic sentence): First, removing upfront fees can [widen access/strengthen social mobility] by reducing financial barriers.

Body 1 S4 (Explain): This policy changes decisions for [low-income/first-generation] students who might otherwise avoid or delay university.

Body 1 S5 (Micro-example): For example, [brief scenario] shows how a student accepts a place once tuition is waived and support is predictable.

Body 1 S6 (Link back): Therefore, the main value of free tuition is [fair access/greater participation], not simply popularity.

Body 2 S7 (Topic sentence): A further point is that concerns about [funding/quality/overcrowding] can be managed through policy design.

Body 2 S8 (Concession + refocus): While costs may rise, [graduate contributions/ring-fenced grants/caps on repeat years] can protect standards.

Body 2 S9 (Micro-example): For instance, [brief scenario] where teaching funds are protected ensures resources match enrolment.

Body 2 S10 (Link back): Consequently, free tuition can work if safeguards align finance with quality.

Conclusion S11 (Restate answer): In summary, I [agree/disagree] that tuition should be free at the point of study.

Conclusion S12 (Synthesis): This is because [Reason 1] and [Reason 2], provided that [brief condition] maintains academic standards.

Paraphrase & Thesis — Ready-to-adapt Samples (Tuition-Free)

Paraphrase Options

P1: Some people believe that university tuition should be abolished so all students can study regardless of income.
P2: It is often claimed that higher education ought to be free at the point of use for everyone.

Thesis Options

Agree (strong): I fully agree because free tuition widens access and benefits society in the long term.
Agree (balanced): I largely agree; undergraduate study should be tuition-free if stable funding protects quality.
Disagree (targeted): I disagree; well-targeted scholarships and income-linked repayments are fairer and more sustainable than a blanket policy.

🔷 Part 2 — Task

[IELTS Academic] [Writing Task 2] — New Task

Question

Many people argue that governments should increase taxes on sugary drinks and snacks to reduce health problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Write at least 250 words.

Timer
40:00
40:00
Write Your Essay Here
Words: 0
Submit for Feedback
Automatic Message (Preview)
—

Note: The message includes: (1) exercise title; (2) the question; (3) your full name, country, email, and WhatsApp; and (4) your essay text for feedback.

🔶 Part 3 — Sample Answers & Explanations

Model Answers for the New Task

Task: Many people argue that governments should increase taxes on sugary drinks and snacks to reduce health problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Below are three fully developed essays written with the recommended four-paragraph structure: a Band 6 sample, a Band 7 sample, and a Band 8+ sample. Each is followed by a step-by-step explanation.

Band 6 Sample (≈280–300 words)

Many people think higher taxes on sugary drinks and snacks will help public health. I mostly agree because a price increase can make people buy less sugar. However, tax alone is not enough and should be supported by education and better choices in shops and schools.

First, when sweet items cost more, some consumers simply choose fewer bottles and packets. Price is important for teenagers and low-income families who often buy these products on impulse. For example, if a large soda becomes clearly more expensive than water, some customers will switch to a cheaper drink, or buy a smaller size. Over time, this can reduce daily sugar intake and lower the risk of obesity and tooth decay.

On the other hand, some people say a sugar tax is unfair because poorer families spend a bigger part of their income on food. Small shops may also worry about lower sales. These concerns are reasonable. To deal with them, the government can use the extra money to improve school meals, run simple health lessons, and reduce prices for healthy snacks like fruit and nuts. Clear labels and limits on advertising to children can also support better choices.

In conclusion, I agree to a large extent that taxing sugary drinks and snacks can improve public health, but it should be part of a wider plan. If the revenue is used to make healthy options easier and cheaper, the policy is more likely to work and to be fair.

Why this Band 6 answer works (step-by-step)

1) The introduction paraphrases the question and gives a clear, mostly-agree thesis.

2) Body 1 presents a simple causal chain (price ↑ → demand ↓ → sugar intake ↓).

3) It uses a practical micro-example (switch to water/smaller size) to make the idea concrete.

4) Body 2 acknowledges fairness and small-business concerns (regressivity, sales).

5) It proposes basic remedies (ring-fence revenue, labels, school meals) showing balance.

6) Vocabulary is topic-appropriate but mostly common (tax, price, healthy choices).

7) Cohesion is achieved with simple linkers (first, on the other hand, in conclusion).

8) Sentences are generally accurate; some are short or repetitive, but meaning is clear.

9) Conclusion restates the position and adds a condition (use revenue well).

10) Development is sufficient and relevant to the task.

Band 7 Sample (≈290–310 words)

I largely agree that higher taxes on sugary drinks and ultra-sweet snacks are a legitimate way to improve public health, provided two safeguards are in place: the policy should encourage reformulation rather than simply raise revenue, and the proceeds must reduce inequalities in diet.

Price signals change behaviour, but they also change products. When governments tax added sugar per gram, manufacturers have a strong incentive to reduce sugar content, adjust portion size, or promote lower-sugar lines. Even modest reformulation across popular brands can cut population-level sugar intake far more reliably than relying on individual willpower. In everyday terms, if a 500-ml drink drops below a tax threshold because it contains less sugar, millions of purchases become slightly healthier without consumers needing to think about it.

Critics argue that such taxes are regressive and may push people towards cheaper but still unhealthy alternatives. These are serious risks, yet policy design can limit them. Governments can ring-fence revenue for free drinking-water fountains, subsidies on fruit and school breakfasts, and clear front-of-pack labels to avoid confusion. Small retailers can be supported to stock affordable, appealing options near checkouts. In short, the measure works best as a visible part of a wider strategy that makes healthier defaults convenient and affordable.

Overall, targeted sugar taxes are justified because they nudge both consumers and producers in a healthier direction. If accompanied by reinvestment in access to nutritious food and clear information, the benefits outweigh the downsides.

Why this Band 7 answer works (step-by-step)

1) Thesis is decisive yet qualified (agree with two safeguards), signalling line of argument.

2) Topic sentence in Body 1 frames a dual mechanism: behaviour change and reformulation.

3) Mechanism is explained (per-gram tax → incentive to reduce sugar/portion size).

4) Micro-example shows how a product crossing a threshold improves millions of purchases.

5) Body 2 concedes key risks (regressivity, substitution) before offering solutions.

6) Remedies are concrete (ring-fenced revenue, water fountains, subsidies, labels, retailer support).

7) Cohesion relies on referencing (“such taxes”, “the measure”) instead of overusing linkers.

8) Lexis is precise (reformulation, portion size, front-of-pack, defaults).

9) Grammar is varied with accurate subordination and nominalisation.

10) Conclusion synthesises stance + conditions without adding new claims.

11) Task requirements (position, development, examples) are fully met at a consistent level.

Band 8+ Sample (≈300–330 words)

The case for taxing sugary drinks and high-sugar snacks is persuasive, not because taxation magically changes personal habits, but because well-designed fiscal rules reshape the food environment. I therefore agree, on balance, that these taxes are warranted when they are tiered by sugar content and the revenue is recycled to expand access to healthy defaults.

First, a tiered levy targets the source of excess sugar: formulation. By linking the tax rate to grams of added sugar per 100 ml or per portion, governments reward manufacturers that reduce sweetness, shrink sizes, or bring genuinely lower-sugar products to market. This approach reaches every purchase, including those made automatically on the way to work or after school, and it operates continuously without requiring individuals to exercise constant self-control. As a result, average sugar exposure falls even if headline sales decline only modestly.

Second, concerns about regressivity and substitution are legitimate but manageable. Recycled revenue can fund universal school breakfasts, fruit and water in public settings, cooking education, and clear, front-of-pack warnings so that cheaper substitutes are not simply equally sugary. Small retailers can receive grants to reposition healthier items at eye-level and to install chilled water points. Crucially, evaluation should be built in from the start—tracking reformulation, purchasing patterns, and health outcomes—to adjust the policy if unintended effects emerge.

In short, sugar taxes are not a silver bullet; they are an enabling instrument. When intelligently structured and transparently reinvested, they shift both supply and demand towards lower sugar consumption, while protecting equity and consumer choice.

Why this Band 8+ answer works (step-by-step)

1) Introduction reframes the claim around environmental design, then states a qualified agreement.

2) Argument is consistently analytical: taxes as incentives acting through product reformulation.

3) Topic sentences are concept-driven (tiered levy; regressivity/substitution management).

4) Mechanisms are unpacked (per-gram levy → reformulation/portion control → population-level effect).

5) Equity is handled with policy tools (revenue recycling, retailer grants, warnings, evaluation).

6) Concrete public-setting examples (school breakfasts, water availability) ground the claims.

7) Cohesion uses precise referencing (“this approach”, “recycled revenue”) and logical connectors.

8) Lexis is advanced but controlled (exposure, tiered, substitutes, unintended effects).

9) Sentence variety and accurate punctuation support clarity and emphasis.

10) Conclusion synthesises the role of taxation within a broader strategy; no new ideas are added.

11) Overall development, precision, and control support Band 8+ across criteria.

🔷 Part 4 — Vocabulary (10 Key Words)

Key Vocabulary from the Task

Topic: Taxes on sugary drinks/snacks — health and policy. Each item includes BrE/AmE IPA, part(s) of speech, patterns, a clear definition, an example with a short gloss, common synonyms, and typical learner mistakes.

sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB)

BrE IPA: /ˈʃʊɡə ˈswiːtənd ˈbɛv(ə)rɪdʒ/   AmE IPA: /ˈʃʊɡər ˈswitənd ˈbɛvərɪdʒ/

Part(s) of speech: noun (countable); plural: SSBs

Patterns: tax on + SSBs; consume/limit + SSBs; SSB intake

Definition: Drinks with added sugar (e.g. sodas, energy drinks, some juices).

Example: “A levy on SSBs can lower average sugar intake.” — Gloss: Taxing sweet drinks reduces how much sugar people consume.

Synonyms: sugary drinks; sweetened soft drinks

Common mistakes: ❌ calling 100% fruit juice an SSB (usually no added sugar); ❌ lowercase/spacing errors in the abbreviation (“ssb”).

excise tax

BrE IPA: /ˈeksaɪz tæks/   AmE IPA: /ˈɛkˌsaɪz tæks/

Part(s) of speech: noun (countable/uncountable)

Patterns: introduce/raise/impose + an excise tax (on + goods)

Definition: A government tax on a specific product (e.g. SSBs, tobacco, fuel).

Example: “The government imposed an excise tax on sugary drinks to discourage over-consumption.” — Gloss: A product-specific tax is used to cut use.

Synonyms: duty; specific tax; sin tax (informal)

Common mistakes: ❌ pronouncing as /ˈɛksaɪz/ for the verb “to excise” (different word); ❌ confusing with VAT (a general sales tax).

levy (tiered levy)

BrE/AmE IPA: /ˈlɛvi/

Part(s) of speech: noun; verb

Patterns: (n.) a levy on + product; a tiered levy based on + sugar content   (v.) to levy a tax on + product

Definition: (n.) A charge collected by authorities; (v.) to impose such a charge.

Example: “A tiered levy encourages reformulation by charging more for higher-sugar drinks.” — Gloss: Higher sugar → higher tax motivates change.

Synonyms: surcharge; charge; impose (v.)

Common mistakes: ❌ using “leverage” instead of levy; ❌ “levee” (different word).

regressive (tax)

BrE/AmE IPA: /rɪˈɡrɛsɪv/

Part(s) of speech: adjective

Patterns: a regressive tax; regressive effects on + low-income households

Definition: Describes a tax whose burden is proportionally higher for people with lower incomes.

Example: “Critics say SSB taxes can be regressive unless revenue supports low-income areas.” — Gloss: Poorer families may pay relatively more.

Synonyms: distributionally unfair (contextual); non-progressive

Common mistakes: ❌ confusing with “recessive”; ❌ using it as a noun (“a regressive” → “a regressive tax”).

reformulation

BrE IPA: /ˌriːˌfɔːmjʊˈleɪʃn/   AmE IPA: /ˌriːˌfɔːrmjəˈleɪʃən/

Part(s) of speech: noun (countable/uncountable)

Patterns: product/recipe + reformulation; incentivise/drive + reformulation

Definition: Changing a product’s recipe (e.g. reducing sugar) to meet rules or market demand.

Example: “After the tax, major brands undertook reformulation to avoid higher rates.” — Gloss: Companies altered recipes to reduce the tax.

Synonyms: recipe change; product redesign

Common mistakes: ❌ “re-formulation” with a hyphen; ❌ using the verb incorrectly (“reformulate to less sugar” → “reformulate to reduce sugar”).

intake (sugar intake)

BrE/AmE IPA: /ˈɪnteɪk/

Part(s) of speech: noun (countable/uncountable)

Patterns: daily/average + intake; reduce/monitor + sugar intake

Definition: The amount of something (e.g. sugar) that a person consumes.

Example: “Price rises can cut sugar intake among frequent buyers.” — Gloss: Higher prices lead regular consumers to use less sugar.

Synonyms: consumption; amount consumed

Common mistakes: ❌ confusing intake with income; ❌ pluralising for a single person’s amount (“intakes”) unnecessarily.

substitution effect

BrE IPA: /ˌsʌbstɪˈtjuːʃn ɪˈfekt/   AmE IPA: /ˌsʌbstəˈtuːʃən ɪˈfɛkt/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase

Patterns: substitution effect towards + alternative; switch to + cheaper substitute

Definition: When consumers switch from a taxed product to a different, often cheaper, product.

Example: “A poorly designed tax may trigger a substitution effect towards equally sugary options.” — Gloss: People may swap to other sweet products.

Synonyms: switching behaviour; product substitution

Common mistakes: ❌ using “replacement effect” (non-standard in this context); ❌ omitting the direction (“substitution effect towards…”).

ring-fence (revenue)

BrE/AmE IPA: /ˈrɪŋ ˌfɛns/

Part(s) of speech: verb; adjective: ring-fenced

Patterns: ring-fence + revenue/funds (for + purpose); ring-fenced funding

Definition: To reserve money for a specific purpose so it cannot be spent elsewhere.

Example: “Governments can ring-fence tax revenue for school breakfasts and water fountains.” — Gloss: Earmark funds for health measures.

Synonyms: earmark; allocate; set aside

Common mistakes: ❌ “ring fence” as two verbs (“to ring fence revenue” → “to ring-fence revenue”); ❌ confusing with “fence off” (literal).

front-of-pack labelling (FOPL)

BrE IPA: /ˌfrʌnt əv ˈpæk ˈleɪbəlɪŋ/   AmE IPA: /ˌfrʌnt əv ˈpæk ˈleɪbəlɪŋ/ (“labeling”)

Part(s) of speech: noun (uncountable); abbreviation: FOPL

Patterns: introduce/standardise + FOPL; clear/colour-coded + FOPL

Definition: Simple nutrition information shown prominently on the front of packages.

Example: “Alongside taxes, FOPL helps shoppers spot high-sugar drinks quickly.” — Gloss: Front labels guide healthier choices.

Synonyms: front-label nutrition; traffic-light labels (contextual)

Common mistakes: ❌ hyphenation inconsistency (“front of pack” vs “front-of-pack”); ❌ using it for back-panel information.

public health

BrE/AmE IPA: /ˈpʌblɪk hɛlθ/

Part(s) of speech: noun (uncountable)

Patterns: public health + outcome/measure; improve/protect + public health

Definition: The health of the population as a whole and the policies that protect it.

Example: “SSB taxes are justified as a public health measure to reduce obesity and tooth decay.” — Gloss: The aim is to improve the population’s health.

Synonyms: population health; community health

Common mistakes: ❌ using it countably (“a public healths”); ❌ treating it as only hospital care (it includes prevention and policy).

🔶 Part 5 — Phrases & Expressions (10 Items)

Key Phrases & Expressions from the Task

Topic: Sugary-drink/snack taxes — public health & policy. Each item includes BrE/AmE IPA, part(s) of speech, patterns, a clear definition, a short example with gloss, common synonyms, and typical learner mistakes.

to what extent

BrE IPA: /tə wɒt ɪkˈstent/   AmE IPA: /tə wʌt ɪkˈstent/

Part(s) of speech: fixed question phrase

Patterns: To what extent + auxiliary + subject + verb (“To what extent do you agree…?”)

Definition: Asks about the degree to which something is true.

Example: “To what extent will higher sugar taxes improve public health?” — Gloss: How much will the policy help?

Synonyms: how far; how much (informal)

Mistakes: ❌ “to which extent”; ❌ missing inversion (“to what extent you agree” → “…do you agree”).

on balance

BrE IPA: /ɒn ˈbæl.əns/   AmE IPA: /ɔn ˈbæləns/

Part(s) of speech: adverbial phrase

Patterns: sentence adverb: On balance, + clause

Definition: After considering pros and cons, overall.

Example: “On balance, taxing sugary drinks is justified if funds improve access to healthy options.” — Gloss: Overall the policy is reasonable with conditions.

Synonyms: overall; all things considered

Mistakes: ❌ “in balance” for this meaning; ❌ using it to mean “physically stable”.

there is a strong case for (doing) …

BrE/AmE IPA: /ðeər ɪz ə strɔːŋ keɪs fɔː(r)/

Part(s) of speech: stance phrase

Patterns: There is a strong case for + -ing/noun

Definition: There are good reasons to support a policy/idea.

Example: “There is a strong case for introducing a tiered levy based on sugar content.” — Gloss: Good reasons support a graded tax.

Synonyms: good grounds for; well-founded reason to

Mistakes: ❌ “strong case to tax” (use for taxing / for a tax).

a blanket policy

BrE/AmE IPA: /ə ˈblæŋkɪt ˈpɒlɪsi/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase

Patterns: a blanket policy on + area; apply a blanket policy

Definition: A rule applied to everyone/everything without exceptions.

Example: “A blanket policy of high taxes may be unfair for small producers.” — Gloss: One rule for all can be inequitable.

Synonyms: one-size-fits-all approach

Mistakes: ❌ using “blanket” to mean “cover” literally in this context.

a more proportionate response

BrE IPA: /prəˈpɔːʃənət/   AmE IPA: /prəˈpɔːrʃənət/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase

Patterns: a more proportionate response would be to + verb

Definition: A fairer, better-matched action to the size of the problem.

Example: “A more proportionate response would be to tax by grams of added sugar.” — Gloss: Target the exact cause.

Synonyms: better-calibrated approach

Mistakes: ❌ spelling “proportionated”.

provided that …

BrE/AmE IPA: /prəˈvaɪdɪd ðæt/

Part(s) of speech: subordinating conjunction

Patterns: provided (that) + clause

Definition: Only if a particular condition is met.

Example: “I agree with the tax provided that revenue is ring-fenced for healthy school meals.” — Gloss: Agree, but only under this condition.

Synonyms: as long as; on condition that

Mistakes: ❌ “provide that”.

the benefits outweigh the drawbacks

BrE/AmE IPA: /ˈbenɪfɪts ˌaʊtˈweɪ ðə ˈdrɔːbæks/

Part(s) of speech: sentence frame

Patterns: The benefits outweigh the drawbacks because + reason

Definition: The advantages are greater than the disadvantages.

Example: “For population health, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks of a sugar levy.” — Gloss: Overall effect is positive.

Synonyms: gains exceed costs

Mistakes: ❌ “out weight”.

a matter of public interest

BrE/AmE IPA: /ˈmætə(r) əv ˈpʌblɪk ˈɪntrɪst/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase

Patterns: is/constitutes + a matter of public interest

Definition: An issue that affects society and justifies state action.

Example: “Reducing childhood obesity is a matter of public interest.” — Gloss: Society as a whole is affected.

Synonyms: public concern; societal priority

Mistakes: ❌ “interest of the publics”.

evidence suggests (that) …

BrE/AmE IPA: /ˈevɪdəns səˈdʒests/

Part(s) of speech: reporting phrase

Patterns: Evidence suggests (that) + clause

Definition: Research/experience indicates something is likely true.

Example: “Evidence suggests that tiered levies encourage product reformulation.” — Gloss: Studies indicate companies reduce sugar.

Synonyms: research indicates; studies show

Mistakes: ❌ plural verb with singular “evidence” (“evidence suggest”).

disproportionately affect

BrE/AmE IPA: /ˌdɪsprəˈpɔːʃ(ə)nətli əˈfekt/

Part(s) of speech: verb phrase

Patterns: disproportionately affect + group

Definition: Have a stronger impact on one group than others.

Example: “Critics argue the tax may disproportionately affect low-income families.” — Gloss: The burden may be heavier for poorer groups.

Synonyms: impact unevenly; affect more strongly

Mistakes: ❌ spelling (“dispropotionately”); ❌ missing adverb (“affect disproportionate”).