Mobile phones in public places: IELTS Task 2 essay #2, band 8.5

There is a long held notion that mobile phones ought to be restricted from social places such as libraries, shops and public transports. Although there are merits to this notion, I believe that a blanket ban is neither practical nor necessary. A more nuanced approach would be introduction of context-specific etiquette.

Admittedly, phones are indispensable for staying connected and handling urgent matters, and thus outright ban could cause unnecessary inconvenience. For many people phones have become portable offices, allowing them to respond to time-sensitive work emails, coordinate childcare, or manage medical emergencies on the go. Consider a parent who needs to be reachable at the moment’s notice in case their child’s school calls, or an employee who must field urgent client queries even while running errands. A complete ban in places like libraries, shops and public transport would strip people of this essential accessibility. Additionally, in the age where smartphone dependency extends to practical tools – digital boarding passes, contactless payments, navigating apps – restricting phones is not merely an inconvenience, but could actively impede daily functioning. These cases, thereby, irrationalize the complete ban of such device.

1. Coherence & cohesion

   Close revision note

   RevisedAdmittedly, phones are indispensable for staying connected and handling urgent matters, thus an outright ban could cause unnecessary inconvenience.

   The use of 'thus' to connect the ideas in the sentence is a bit awkward. It might be better to use a different linking word.

2. Lexical resource

   Close revision note

   RevisedFor many people, phones have become portable offices, enabling them to respond to time-sensitive work emails, coordinate childcare, or manage medical emergencies on the go.

   The use of the word 'allowing' is a bit awkward in this context. It might be better to use a different word or phrase to convey the same idea.

3. Coherence & cohesion

   Close revision note

   RevisedThese cases, thereby, make the complete ban of such devices irrational.

   The word 'irrationalize' is not being used correctly here. It would be better to use the word 'irrational' to convey the same idea.

On the other hand, however, unrestricted phone use in public space is not without genuine drawbacks, and thus these concerns should not be dismissed. In libraries, for instance, conducting loud conversations can be major source of disruption, undermining the quiet, focused atmosphere that visitors expect and infringing other’s right to concentrate. In retail settings, phone use can compromise security, as seen when shoppers photograph till screens or exploit self-checkout systems while distracted staff are not watching, and unsolicited photography of other customers can breach their privacy. Public transport presents perhaps the most serious case, where safety concerns come into play. Commuters engrossed in their screens may block emergency exits, fail to heed important announcements or react slowly during evacuation. Collectively, these suggest that phone use, left completely unchecked, can come at the expense of others well-being.

1. Lexical resource

   Close revision note

   RevisedPublic transport presents perhaps the most significant case, where safety concerns come into play.

   The word 'serious' might not be the best choice in this context. 'Significant' could be a better fit.

Despite these rational arguments, I opine that a complete ban is an extreme. Rather than resorting to an outright ban, a more measured approach would be to impellent context-specific etiquette that addresses the legitimate concerns above without robbing people of their autonomy. Libraries, for example, can designate quiet zones where phones must remain on silent mode, while allowing calls in designated lobby areas for those handling urgent matters. Public transport operators could introduce phone-free carriages, similar to that of trains, giving passengers a choice to opt for an uninterrupted environment, while others retain full access elsewhere. Shops, meanwhile, could rely on staff discretion and clear signage to discourage disruptive or invasive phone use such as photography near checkouts. These would assist in not penalizing the vast majority who use their phones responsibly. This kind of nuanced regulation strikes a balance between personal convenience and consideration for others, achieving the same outcome as a ban – reduced disruption – but through accommodation rather than prohibition.

1. Grammar & accuracy

   Close revision note

   RevisedLibraries, for example, can designate quiet zones where phones must remain on silent mode, while allowing calls in designated lobby areas for those who are handling urgent matters.

   The phrase 'those handling urgent matters' is a bit awkward. It might be better to say 'those who are handling urgent matters'.

2. Coherence & cohesion

   Close revision note

   RevisedThis kind of nuanced regulation, achieving the same outcome as a ban – reduced disruption – but through accommodation rather than prohibition, strikes a balance between personal convenience and consideration for others.

   The sentence is a bit long and the order of ideas could be rearranged for better clarity.

In conclusion, while uncontrolled phone use in public spaces can cause disruption and raise legitimate safety and privacy concerns an outright ban would be a disproportionate response that overlooks how indispensable these devices have become to daily life. A far more feasible solution lies in context-specific etiquette – quiet zones, phone-free carriages and clear signage – which strikes a balance. Therefore, I disagree that mobile phones should be banned completely in libraries, shops and public transport. Targeted regulation, not prohibition, is the more sensible path forward.

1. Grammar & accuracy

   Close revision note

   RevisedIn conclusion, while uncontrolled phone use in public spaces can cause disruption and raise legitimate safety and privacy concerns, an outright ban would be a disproportionate response that overlooks how indispensable these devices have become to daily life.

   The sentence is a bit long and the use of punctuation could be improved for better clarity.

2. Lexical resource

   Close revision note

   RevisedTargeted regulation, rather than prohibition, is the more sensible path forward.

   The phrase 'path forward' is a bit vague. It might be better to say 'course of action' instead.