The best way to provide enough homes in large cities is to build tall apartment blocks.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
I would agree that high-rise apartment blocks are a major part of the answer to urban housing shortages, but I disagree that they are the best — let alone the only — way, because building upwards on the most expensive land is neither the most affordable nor, on its own, a sufficient response.
The case for tall buildings is strong. In dense cities, land is scarce and costly, so increasing the number of units per square metre is the most obvious way to house more people on the same footprint. Tower blocks also allow planners to reserve land for parks, schools and transport links, since a single tower can house what would otherwise require a sprawling neighbourhood. In cities such as Singapore and Hong Kong, high-rise living has enabled very high population densities while remaining workable and, in many cases, attractive.
However, treating tall blocks as the "best" method overlooks their serious drawbacks. Construction is expensive and slow, and the resulting homes are often priced beyond the reach of the very people the policy is meant to help — so towers can relieve a headline shortage while remaining unaffordable. High-rises also concentrate demand on already-burdened infrastructure, and poorly maintained towers can quickly become crowded and uncomfortable places to live.
For this reason, a genuinely effective approach combines several measures. Converting underused commercial and industrial buildings, encouraging smaller, more efficient units in existing districts, and improving transport so that affordable housing can be built further from the centre are all cheaper and faster than waiting for new towers. Regeneration of existing neighbourhoods, rather than only vertical expansion, tends to preserve community and make better use of land already served by services.
In conclusion, while tall apartment blocks have an important role, they are best viewed as one tool among many. A city that relies solely on them risks building expensive homes, whereas one that pairs them with renovation, better transport and smarter land use is far more likely to house its residents affordably.
The answer takes a clear, nuanced stance and directly attacks the two loaded words in the prompt — "best" and the implied "only". It concedes the genuine case for high-rises before rejecting the superlative, so the reader sees both sides before the verdict lands.
Takeaway: for an "to what extent" agree/disagree, identify the extreme word in the statement (best, only, entirely, never) and argue against the extreme while still conceding the sensible core — that is the Band 8 move.
The paragraph flow is concession → limitation → combination → conclusion, signposted by "However", "For this reason", and "In conclusion." The final paragraph restates the position without repeating the body's evidence, which is the correct ending move.
Takeaway: use a concession-refutation shape: give the case for, then the limits, then the better synthesis, then a one-line restatement of the stance.
The essay stays precise about affordability: "relieve a headline shortage while remaining unaffordable", "the very people the policy is meant to help." "One tool among many" and "sprawling neighbourhood" add range without being empty fillers.
Takeaway: when a prompt is about economic or policy ideas, nail the cost/benefit phrasing — "affordable", "inefficient", "infrastructure" — instead of vague "better/worse" adjectives.
Purpose and preference structures carry the logic: "so that affordable housing can be built further from the centre" (purpose), "rather than only vertical expansion" (preference), and the passive "is meant to help" and "is best viewed as". Result clauses with "whereas" add contrast in a single sentence.
Takeaway: deploy purpose (so that), preference (rather than), and contrast (whereas) clauses to pack reasoning into single sentences instead of stringing short ones with "and also".