Some people think that competition at work, at school and in daily life is a good thing. Others believe that we should try to cooperate more, rather than competing against each other.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
There is a real tension in modern life between the drive to compete and the need to cooperate. Some people see competition as the engine of achievement, while others argue that it does more harm than good and that cooperation should come first. In my view, both have a place, and the answer lies not in choosing one but in getting the balance right for each situation.
Those who defend competition have a strong case. It pushes people to work harder, set higher goals and reach standards they might not otherwise attempt. In education and sport, it identifies and rewards the best, and in the workplace it can drive productivity and innovation. Competition also builds resilience, because it teaches people to handle pressure and learn from losing.
The opposing view is not without merit. Unchecked competition can be corrosive, breeding anxiety, burnout and even unethical behaviour as people cut corners to win. It encourages people to see others as rivals rather than allies, which can damage trust in teams and relationships. In fields that depend on shared knowledge — science, medicine, for example — excessive competition can actually slow progress, because people withhold information instead of collaborating.
My opinion is that the two are complementary rather than opposed. The best outcomes tend to come from healthy competition within a cooperative framework: people in a team strive to do their best, but they also share ideas and support one another. Schools and workplaces function best when they reward individual effort while fostering teamwork. Arbitrary, winner-takes-all competition should be avoided, but so should a culture that removes all incentive to excel.
In conclusion, I believe competition and cooperation are not rivals but partners. We should encourage ambition and effort while making sure that collaboration, fairness and shared goals remain in place, so that the drive to win serves the group rather than undermining it.
The essay discusses both sides with two reasons each, then gives a clear opinion that synthesises them — "healthy competition within a cooperative framework." This avoids the common pitfall of only defending one side and shows genuine evaluation.
Takeaway: for "discuss both + opinion," give each side two distinct reasons, then offer a framing opinion (X within Y) rather than picking one side — the synthesis is the Band 8 move.
The structure is introduction → case for competition → concession → synthesis → conclusion, with clear transitions ("Those who defend", "The opposing view", "My opinion is", "In conclusion"). Each paragraph carries one job.
Takeaway: use opposing-side openers ("those who defend...", "the opposing view...") to signal the discussion structure, and a distinct "my opinion is" paragraph to separate your view from the two presented.
The vocabulary is precise about motivation and culture: "the engine of achievement", "corrosive", "breed anxiety", "cut corners", "withhold information", "winner-takes-all." These are idiomatic and evaluative.
Takeaway: for the work/school/competition theme, use engine of achievement, corrosive, cut corners, winner-takes-all, foster, collaborate — the blend of metaphor and precise nouns lifts the argument.
The essay uses correlative and contrast structures: "not in choosing one but in getting the balance right" (not... but), "because it teaches people to handle pressure" (causal), "which can damage trust" (non-defining relative), and "so that the drive to win serves the group" (purpose).
Takeaway: use "not X but Y" to reframe, a non-defining relative ("which can...") to add consequence, and a purpose clause ("so that...") to state your own view's aim.