Jump to a section
What you'll learn
- How to answer “To what extent do you agree or disagree?”
- How to agree with part of a claim and still give a clear answer.
- Two complete model answers, with notes on why they work.
Make the extent of your agreement clear
“To what extent do you agree or disagree?” asks you to judge one specific claim. You can agree strongly, disagree strongly, or agree with one part and disagree with another. What matters is that you explain your opinion and keep it the same throughout. You don't get extra marks for choosing an extreme position.
We call these “opinion essays” for practice, but that doesn't mean you can't mention another view. If the claim contains two connected ideas, you may need to discuss both. Your reasons and your words should show which parts you accept and where your agreement stops.
Solved example 1: “useful” is not the same as “required”
Task: All university students should be required to complete a period of unpaid community work. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Tempting approach: Say volunteering is useful, then conclude it should be compulsory. This misses two key words: “required” and “unpaid”. Something can be good without being a fair rule for everyone.
Useful position: Universities should encourage community work and make it easy to do, but forcing every student to work unpaid is unfair to some students.
Plan: First explain what students and communities can gain. Then explain why an unpaid rule for everyone causes practical and money problems. End by recommending supported choice, as the result of that comparison.
Complete model answer
Read the model answer below. Notice how it accepts the value of community work but still questions the rule.
Community projects can give university students valuable experience while providing useful help to local organisations. However, I do not agree that every student should be required to work without pay. Universities should make service easier to undertake, but participation should take account of students' circumstances.
There is a strong case for encouraging students to contribute to their communities. Work in a neighbourhood centre or a local environmental project can bring them into contact with people outside their usual social group. It can also help them practise cooperation and responsibility in a setting where their contribution has a visible purpose. A student helping to organise activities for older residents, for instance, may learn to adapt plans to other people's needs. These are worthwhile experiences that academic study alone may not provide.
Nevertheless, making this work both compulsory and unpaid would affect students unequally. Some already need paid employment to cover their living costs, while others have caring responsibilities. Requiring additional unpaid hours could force these students to sacrifice either essential income or study time. The arrangement might also place pressure on community organisations to supervise volunteers who are present only to satisfy a university rule. Useful service requires appropriate roles and reliable support, rather than simply a large number of compulsory participants.
A better approach would be to offer a range of well-organised opportunities, with flexible schedules and financial assistance where necessary. Students could then choose work that fits their abilities and commitments. In conclusion, community service deserves an important place in university life, but its benefits do not justify an identical unpaid obligation for everyone.
How the model answer builds its opinion
The introduction separates two ideas: encouraging community work, and forcing it. The first body paragraph explains a real benefit instead of dismissing the idea, and its example shows teamwork in action. The second body paragraph asks who pays the cost of the rule, and why unwilling volunteers could also be a burden for the organisations. The final paragraph offers a practical alternative that comes from these reasons.
Look at the language too. “Nevertheless” signals a real limit, not a change of topic. “These students” means only students with jobs or caring duties. “Might” avoids claiming every organisation would have the same problem. The writer's opinion comes through in the reasons and word choices, so there's no need to repeat “I disagree” in every paragraph.
Solved example 2: partly agree, but stay clear
Task: Schools should replace printed textbooks with digital materials. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Vague answer: “I partly agree because both are important.” This gives no decision.
Clear answer: “Digital materials should replace printed books where they improve access and can be used reliably, but schools should retain printed options for pupils who lack suitable devices or connectivity.”
Development: One paragraph could explain that digital books are easy to update and the text size can be changed. Another could discuss pupils without devices or internet, and the need for materials that always work. The position has conditions, but they are clear.
Solved example 3: challenge “always” carefully
Claim: “Working from home is always better than working in an office.”
Weak response: “Working from home is always terrible.” This just swaps one extreme claim for another.
Useful response: “Remote work can improve concentration for independent tasks, but it is less suitable when staff need frequent practical collaboration.”
Why it works: The answer depends on the type of work. A design team testing a product together may need to share a room, while someone editing a report may need quiet time alone. You can reject “always” and still accept the real advantages.
Keep the other side in proportion
A concession means admitting a point from the other side that doesn't change your overall opinion. If you mention one, explain why it matters. But if most of your essay develops the opposite view and your own reasons get only one sentence, the reader won't understand your opinion. On the other hand, pretending there are no objections at all can make your argument less convincing.
Let the question decide how much space each part needs. There is no rule that says one paragraph for your view and one for the other view. A clear, well-explained answer matters more than a fixed paragraph pattern.
Think it through before writing “I agree”
Treat the question as a proposal someone wants you to consider. First, say exactly what the proposal would require. Next, ask what would happen if it became reality. Finally, decide whether those results justify the proposal as it is written. This stops you from agreeing with a nice word such as “help” while missing a difficult word such as “all”, “only” or “compulsory”.
Take this claim: “All employers should pay for any course an employee wishes to take.” It doesn't just say training is useful. It asks employers to pay for every course an employee chooses, even one unrelated to the job. You could support job-related training but reject this unlimited responsibility. That's a clear answer, because it shows which part you accept and which part you reject.
A slow worked construction: two claims, one opinion
Task: Working remotely saves employees time, but it can make cooperation harder. To what extent do you agree with these statements?
Do you have to choose only one statement?
No. Look at both claims (saving time and harder cooperation), then say how true each one is.
Both claims can be reasonable. The journey to work disappears, but a quick chat with a colleague becomes harder. Explaining when each claim is true gives a clear opinion, without forcing the answer into “remote work is completely good” or “remote work is completely bad”.
Step 1: keep the meaning. “Saves time” means time normally spent travelling or on office routines. It doesn't mean every remote worker finishes every task faster. “Can make cooperation harder” says this is possible, not that cooperation becomes impossible.
Step 2: give one reason for each claim. A worker with a long journey to work no longer has to make it. A new team member may need help but can't easily ask someone at the next desk. These are two different effects of the same arrangement.
Step 3: add a condition. A quiet room and good equipment help remote work go well. Fixed meeting times help colleagues work together. These conditions limit the claims without rejecting them.
Step 4: write an opinion that combines your findings. “I agree that remote work can save substantial travel time and create communication difficulties, but neither result is identical for every job. A mixed arrangement is often more sensible than an absolute rule.” Now the reader expects a discussion of time, cooperation and how work is organised.
A second complete model answer
Remote work can remove a familiar part of an employee's day: the journey to an office. It can also change how colleagues exchange information. I agree that the arrangement often saves time while making some cooperation more difficult, but the importance of these effects depends on the work and the support provided.
The time-saving argument is strongest for employees who otherwise face a long commute. Avoiding a crowded train or a slow journey by car creates time that can be used for rest, family responsibilities or other activities. There may also be fewer interruptions during individual work. However, an employee dealing with unreliable equipment or a noisy home may spend extra time solving problems. It is therefore more accurate to say that remote work can remove particular delays than to claim that it makes everyone work faster.
Cooperation can become harder because small questions no longer have an obvious moment in which to be asked. An experienced colleague may solve a problem quickly during an office conversation, whereas a new remote employee might postpone asking for help. Important information can then arrive late. This does not make good cooperation impossible, but employers need to arrange accessible support, shared working periods and clear ways to contact the appropriate person.
In my view, these points support a flexible arrangement rather than a rule requiring either permanent home working or constant office attendance. Independent tasks can often be completed remotely, while selected office days preserve contact. In conclusion, both statements identify real effects, but good decisions require attention to the role and to the conditions in which people work.
The first body paragraph doesn't just say commuting is tiring. It explains what time is saved, then limits the claim. The second doesn't just say communication is important. It shows a new employee delaying a question, and what can happen as a result. The conclusion comes from both: the arrangement should depend on the job and the support available.
Two further solved decisions: clear agreement and clear disagreement
Task A: Employers should provide safety training before staff use unfamiliar machinery. To what extent do you agree?
Clear agreement: Agree, because staff need to know the dangers and practise the controls before working alone. Explain how supervised training prevents mistakes. You can mention the cost briefly if it's relevant, but don't add a weak paragraph for the other side just to look balanced. Your job is to support your agreement with this specific rule.
Tempting mistake: Describing every benefit of education is too broad. Keep the training linked to unfamiliar machines and safe work.
Task B: Every shop should accept payment only through a mobile phone application. To what extent do you agree?
Clear disagreement: Reject the word “only”, because customers without a suitable phone, internet connection or digital confidence would be left out. Accept that an app can make some payments quick, but explain why convenience doesn't justify removing every other way to pay.
Tempting mistake: Arguing that technology is always dangerous goes much further than you need. You can reject a rule that allows only one method, and still support having that method as an option.
Guided practice before an independent essay
For the claim “All employee training should take place outside paid working hours”, complete these notes: the word “all” includes…; a worker may face…; an employer may benefit from…; my limit would be… . Then write a short paragraph explaining why one limit matters.
Show possible notes and a paragraph
“All” includes compulsory training needed to do the current job safely. A worker may lose personal time, or struggle to arrange childcare. An employer benefits when staff can do the job well. A possible limit: training the employer requires should happen in paid time, but optional unrelated courses are different.
“Training that an employer requires for a current role should normally be supported during paid hours. If a worker cannot operate new equipment until a compulsory course is complete, that course is part of meeting the employer's service needs. Requiring it entirely in personal time can create difficulties for carers or shift workers. This is different from an employee independently choosing an unrelated hobby course.” The paragraph explains the difference. It doesn't need to keep repeating “I agree”.
Your turn
“All employees should be allowed to choose where they work.” Write a clear statement of how far you agree. Then name one benefit and one condition your essay would need to explain.
Show a possible answer
“Employees should have a choice where the tasks and service requirements allow it, but location cannot be entirely optional in every role.” A benefit: less commuting, for work that can be done from home. A condition: some jobs need people there in person, such as work with machines, patients or customers. This answer deals with the word “all”, without claiming office work is always better.
Remember
- You can agree, disagree or partly agree; what matters is a clear, consistent opinion.
- Look for words such as “all”, “only”, “required” and “always”: they often decide your answer.
- If you partly agree, say exactly which part you accept and which part you reject.
Put this lesson into practice
Work at your own pace, then check your answers and review the explanations.