Discussion (Both Views) Essay Nasıl Yazılır (Discussion Essay) — IELTS Konu Anlatımı

Discussion (both views) essay, IELTS Writing Task 2’de en sık çıkan soru tiplerinden biridir. Soru kökü genellikle şunu ister: “Discuss both views and give your own opinion.” Burada iki görevin var: birincisi, konuyla ilgili iki karşıt görüşü dengeli ve tarafsız bir biçimde açıklamak; ikincisi ise kendi görüşünü net olarak bildirmek. Bu iki görevden birini atlarsan Task Response puanın düşer.

Bu tipi “opinion (agree/disagree)” essay ile karıştırma. Opinion essay’de baştan sona tek pozisyonu savunursun; discussion essay’de ise her iki tarafı da ciddiye alıp sunar, sonra kendi tarafını belirtirsin. Kendi görüşünü girişte sezdirir, sonuçta açıkça verirsin.

Yazının tamamı 4 paragraf olmalı ve 270-300 kelime aralığında kalmalıdır. Yapı şöyledir:

Giriş (Introduction): Soruyu kendi cümlelerinle parafraz et, iki görüşü kısaca tanıt ve kendi görüşünü sezdiren bir tez cümlesiyle bitir.
Body 1: Birinci görüşü tek başlı bir fikir olarak işle — İddia → Gerekçe → Örnek → Sonuç.
Body 2: İkinci (karşıt) görüşü aynı zincirle işle. Tonı tarafsız tut; bu paragraf birincisiyle ağırlık bakımından dengeli olsun.
Sonuç (Conclusion): İki görüşü özetle ve kendi yargını net bir cümleyle ver. Yeni fikir ya da yeni örnek ekleme.

ASLA 5 paragraf yazma. Üç gövde paragrafı = dağınık fikir + kelime savurganlığı demektir; her paragraf tek ve net bir görüşü temsil etmelidir. Dengeli iki gövde, sınavda en güvenli ve en yüksek puanlı yoldur.

Kilit fikir: Discussion essay tarafsızlıkla başlar, kararlılıkla biter. Önce iki görüşü adil sun, sonra sonuçta net bir taraf tut.

Aşağıda bu türde gerçek bir IELTS sorusu, görseli ve Band 8+ model cevabı yer alıyor. Model cevap, bu sayfadaki dört-paragraf metodun birebir uygulamasıdır; her paragrafın işlevine dikkat et.

Soru. Some people think that students should study subjects they enjoy, while others believe they should study subjects that are useful for future employment. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Model cevap (291 kelime)

Introduction. People often disagree about whether students should choose subjects they find enjoyable or subjects that will improve their job prospects. Both positions have merit, but in my view this is a false choice: wherever possible, students should seek the overlap between the two.

Body 1. Those who favour studying enjoyable subjects point to motivation. A student who is genuinely interested in a field will read beyond the syllabus and persevere when the work becomes difficult, whereas a student who has chosen a course purely for career reasons often loses heart and drops out. A friend of mine, for example, abandoned a law degree he found tedious and switched to graphic design; although the field was less prestigious, he finally graduated with distinction because he actually cared about the work. Completion rates, indeed, tend to be lower on programmes chosen solely for employability, and an unfinished degree serves no one.

Body 2. On the other hand, education is expensive and, for many families, cannot be treated as a hobby. A graduate holding a qualification that employers do not value may spend years in insecure work. For students from low-income backgrounds in particular, this is not a matter of preference but of survival: a wealthy student can afford to study philosophy and take the risk, while others simply cannot. This reality cannot be dismissed as unromantic, for a family investing its life savings in a single degree has every right to expect a return on it.

Conclusion. In conclusion, while I understand the financial argument, I believe the two aims are rarely opposed. Interest is itself what drives students to finish and excel, so the wisest approach is to choose a field that is both engaging and employable, and to prioritise usefulness only when no such overlap exists.

Neden yüksek band: Iki gorus ayri body'lerde dengeli. Pozisyon giriste sezdirildi, sonucta net verildi (kitapcik: pozisyon Discussion'da sonucta). 'false choice / overlap' onerilen guclu pozisyon.

Below is a real IELTS question of this type, along with its visual and Band 8+ model answer. The model answer is a direct application of the four-paragraph method on this page; pay attention to the function of each paragraph.

Question. Some people think that students should study subjects they enjoy, while others believe they should study subjects that are useful for future employment. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Model answer (291 words)

Introduction. People often disagree about whether students should choose subjects they find enjoyable or subjects that will improve their job prospects. Both positions have merit, but in my view this is a false choice: wherever possible, students should seek the overlap between the two.

Body 1. Those who favour studying enjoyable subjects point to motivation. A student who is genuinely interested in a field will read beyond the syllabus and persevere when the work becomes difficult, whereas a student who has chosen a course purely for career reasons often loses heart and drops out. A friend of mine, for example, abandoned a law degree he found tedious and switched to graphic design; although the field was less prestigious, he finally graduated with distinction because he actually cared about the work. Completion rates, indeed, tend to be lower on programmes chosen solely for employability, and an unfinished degree serves no one.

Body 2. On the other hand, education is expensive and, for many families, cannot be treated as a hobby. A graduate holding a qualification that employers do not value may spend years in insecure work. For students from low-income backgrounds in particular, this is not a matter of preference but of survival: a wealthy student can afford to study philosophy and take the risk, while others simply cannot. This reality cannot be dismissed as unromantic, for a family investing its life savings in a single degree has every right to expect a return on it.

Conclusion. In conclusion, while I understand the financial argument, I believe the two aims are rarely opposed. Interest is itself what drives students to finish and excel, so the wisest approach is to choose a field that is both engaging and employable, and to prioritise usefulness only when no such overlap exists.

Why high band: Both views are balanced in separate bodies. The position is hinted at in the introduction and stated clearly in the conclusion (booklet: position is stated in the conclusion of Discussion). 'false choice / overlap' suggests a strong position.

Her gövde paragrafı, tek bir görüşü mantık zinciriyle geliştirir. Bu dört adımlı kalıp, ekspertlerin “PEEL” adını verdiği yapının IELTS uyarlamasıdır ve Coherence & Cohesion puanını doğrudan yükseltir. Her body’yi şu sırayla kur:

İddia (Topic sentence): Paragrafın hangi görüşü sunduğunu ilk cümlede net bildir. Örn. “On the one hand, advocates of self-funding contend that individuals who benefit directly should pay.”
Gerekçe (Explanation): Bu görüşü savunanlarneden böyle düşünüyor? Mantığı bir adım aç. “because…”, “their reasoning is that…” gibi bağlarla nedeni göster.
Örnek (Example): Somut, inandırıcı bir örnek ver — bir ülke, bir eğilim ya da mantıklı bir senaryo. “For instance…”, “In Germany, for example…”. Örneksiz body Band 6’da takılır.
Sonuç (Link): Paragrafı mini bir sonuçla kapat; örnekten görüşe geri dön. “Consequently…”, “As a result…”, “In this way…”.

Discussion’a özgü kritik nokta: Body 1 ve Body 2 dengeli olmalı. İki paragraf yaklaşık aynı uzunlukta ve aynı gelişmişlikte olsun. Birinci görüşe beş cümle, ikinciye iki cümle ayırırsan değerlendirici “tek taraflı tartışma” olarak görür. Ayrıca ikinci görüşe geçerken zorunlu geçiş ifadesini kullan: “On the other hand…”.

İpucu: Önemli olan senin kendi tarafın olsa bile, karşıt görüşü hafife alarak yazma. Her iki paragrafı da kendisine inanıyormuş gibi ikna edici kur; tarafını yalnızca sonuçta açıkla.

Discussion essay’de dil iki iş görür: başka insanların görüşlerini tarafsızca aktarmak ve sonuçta kendi görüşünü bildirmek. Bu ikisini karıştırma: gövdelerde “bazıları şöyle düşünür” dilini, sonuçta “bence” dilini kullan. Aşağıdaki kalıplar tam bu ayrım için hazırdır:

İşlev	İngilizce kalıp	Nerede kullanılır
Birinci görüşü tanıtma	Some people argue that… / On the one hand, it is claimed that…	Body 1 ilk cümle
Karşıt görüşe geçiş	On the other hand, others believe that… / Conversely, it is argued that…	Body 2 ilk cümle
Tarafsız aktarım	Advocates of this view contend that… / Supporters point out that…	Her iki body
Gerekçe bağlama	Their reasoning is that… / This is because…	Body geliştirme
Kendi görüşünü bildirme	In my view… / I would argue that… / Personally, I believe…	Sonuç (ve girişte hafifçe)
Ağırlıklı görüş	Although…, I am convinced that… / While both sides have merit, I side with…	Sonuç yargısı

Dengeli aktarımın sırrı: Gövdelerde “believe, argue, claim, contend, point out” gibi rapor fiillerini kullan — böylece o fikir senin değil, “bazı insanların” fikri olur. Kendi sesin sadece sonuçta “In my view…” ile devreye girer. Bu ayrım, değerlendiriciye görevi tam anladığını gösterir.

Kilit fikir: Rapor fiilleri (argue, contend, maintain) = tarafsızlık. Birinci tekil (In my view, I would argue) = kendi görüşün. İkisini yerinde kullandığında hem denge hem netlik kazanırsın.

In a discussion essay, language serves two purposes: to impartially convey other people's views and to state your own opinion in the conclusion. Do not mix these: use the language of “some people think” in the bodies, and “I think” language in the conclusion. The following phrases are ready for this distinction:

Function	English phrase	Where to use
Introducing the first view	Some people argue that… / On the one hand, it is claimed that…	First sentence of Body 1
Transitioning to the opposing view	On the other hand, others believe that… / Conversely, it is argued that…	First sentence of Body 2
Impartial conveyance	Advocates of this view contend that… / Supporters point out that…	Both bodies
Justification linking	Their reasoning is that… / This is because…	Body development
Stating your opinion	In my view… / I would argue that… / Personally, I believe…	Conclusion (and slightly in the introduction)
Weighted opinion	Although…, I am convinced that… / While both sides have merit, I side with…	Conclusion judgment

The secret to balanced conveyance: Use reporting verbs like “believe, argue, claim, contend, point out” in the bodies — this way, that idea becomes “some people's” idea, not yours. Your voice only comes in at the conclusion with “In my view…”. This distinction shows the evaluator that you fully understand the task.

Key idea: Reporting verbs (argue, contend, maintain) = impartiality. First person singular (In my view, I would argue) = your opinion. When you use both appropriately, you gain both balance and clarity.

Aşağıda tipik bir discussion sorusu ve buna yazılmış Band 8+ bir model bulacaksın. Model 277 kelimedir ve dört paragrafın her biri etiketlidir.

Question: Some people believe that university students should pay their full tuition fees themselves, while others think the government should fund higher education. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Introduction

The question of who should bear the cost of higher education generates considerable debate. While some maintain that students ought to finance their own studies, others argue that the state should shoulder this burden. This essay will examine both positions before concluding that public funding, at least partially, is the fairer approach.

Body 1 — First view (self-funding)

On the one hand, advocates of self-funding contend that individuals who benefit directly should pay for their education. Their reasoning is that a degree substantially increases lifetime earnings, so graduates can comfortably repay the investment. In Australia, for instance, students defer their fees through income-contingent loans and only repay once they earn above a set threshold, which spreads the cost fairly over a career. Consequently, this system relieves taxpayers who never attended university from subsidising others. In this way, those who reap the rewards also carry the responsibility.

Body 2 — Second view (government funding)

On the other hand, supporters of state funding believe that education is a public good that benefits society as a whole. They point out that doctors, engineers and teachers trained at public expense drive economic growth and improve everyone’s quality of life. Germany, where tuition is free at public universities, illustrates how removing financial barriers widens access for talented students from poorer backgrounds. As a result, the nation gains a more skilled and equitable workforce. In this way, the whole community shares in the long-term rewards.

Conclusion

In my view, although self-funding encourages personal responsibility, the government should cover the majority of tuition costs. Because an educated population ultimately strengthens the economy and reduces inequality, treating higher education as a shared investment serves the wider public interest more effectively than leaving young people burdened with debt.

Türkçe analiz: Giriş soruyu parafraz eder (“who should bear the cost”), iki görüşü tanıtır ve tez cümlesiyle tarafı sezdirir (“public funding … is the fairer approach”) — ama henüz gerekçelendirmez. Body 1 öz-finansman görüşünü İddia (“individuals who benefit should pay”) → Gerekçe (kazanç artar) → Örnek (Avustralya gelir-bağlı kredi) → Sonuç (vergi verenler korunur) zinciriyle işler. Body 2 aynı uzunlukta ve aynı zincirle karşıt görüşü sunar (Almanya örneği). İki gövde dengelidir: her ikisi de rapor fiilleriyle (“contend”, “believe”, “point out”) tarafsızca aktarılır; yazarın kendi sesi burada devrede değildir. Sonuç ise “In my view…” ile kendi görüşünü net verir ve “although…” yapısıyla karşıt görüşün değerini kabul edip kendi tarafını gerekçelendirir. Böylece hem “discuss both views” hem “give your own opinion” görevleri tam karşılanır.

Below you will find a typical discussion question and a written Band 8+ model. The model is 277 words and each of the four paragraphs is labeled.

Question: Some people believe that university students should pay their full tuition fees themselves, while others think the government should fund higher education. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Introduction

The question of who should bear the cost of higher education generates considerable debate. While some maintain that students ought to finance their own studies, others argue that the state should shoulder this burden. This essay will examine both positions before concluding that public funding, at least partially, is the fairer approach.

Body 1 — First view (self-funding)

On the one hand, advocates of self-funding contend that individuals who benefit directly should pay for their education. Their reasoning is that a degree substantially increases lifetime earnings, so graduates can comfortably repay the investment. In Australia, for instance, students defer their fees through income-contingent loans and only repay once they earn above a set threshold, which spreads the cost fairly over a career. Consequently, this system relieves taxpayers who never attended university from subsidising others. In this way, those who reap the rewards also carry the responsibility.

Body 2 — Second view (government funding)

On the other hand, supporters of state funding believe that education is a public good that benefits society as a whole. They point out that doctors, engineers and teachers trained at public expense drive economic growth and improve everyone’s quality of life. Germany, where tuition is free at public universities, illustrates how removing financial barriers widens access for talented students from poorer backgrounds. As a result, the nation gains a more skilled and equitable workforce. In this way, the whole community shares in the long-term rewards.

Conclusion

In my view, although self-funding encourages personal responsibility, the government should cover the majority of tuition costs. Because an educated population ultimately strengthens the economy and reduces inequality, treating higher education as a shared investment serves the wider public interest more effectively than leaving young people burdened with debt.

Turkish analysis: The introduction paraphrases the question (“who should bear the cost”), introduces the two views, and hints at the side with a thesis statement (“public funding … is the fairer approach”) — but does not yet justify it. Body 1 presents the self-funding view through Claim (“individuals who benefit should pay”) → Justification (earnings increase) → Example (Australia income-contingent loan) → Conclusion (taxpayers are protected) chain. Body 2 presents the opposing view with the same length and chain (Germany example). The two bodies are balanced: both are conveyed impartially with reporting verbs (“contend”, “believe”, “point out”); the author's own voice is not present here. Conclusion states the author's opinion clearly with “In my view…” and justifies their side while acknowledging the value of the opposing view with the structure “although…”. Thus, both tasks of “discuss both views” and “give your own opinion” are fully met.

Bu hatalar Task Response puanını doğrudan düşürür:

Tek görüşü işlemek: Sadece katıldığın tarafı anlatıp diğerini bir cümleyle geçmek. Soru “discuss both” der — iki görüş de dengeli ve tam geliştirilmeli.
Kendi görüşünü hiç vermemek: “Her iki görüşün de artıları var” deyip sıvanıp geçmek. Soru “give your own opinion” der; sonuçta net bir taraf tutmak zorunludur.
Örneksiz body: Soyut cümlelerle dolu, somut örneği olmayan paragraflar Band 6’da takılır. Her gövdeye bir ülke/eğilim/senaryo örneği koy.
5 paragraf yazmak: Üç gövde paragrafı fikirleri seyreltir ve kelime bütçesini tüketir. Tam olarak 2 dengeli gövde yaz.
Görüşlerin çelişmesi: Girişte bir tarafa meyledip sonuçta diğer tarafı seçmek. Girişteki sezdirme ile sonuçtaki yargı aynı olmalı.
Tarafsızlığı kaybetmek: Gövdelerde “I think this is wrong” gibi cümlelerle karşıt görüşü küçümsemek. Gövdeler rapor fiilleriyle tarafsız kalmalı; görüşün sadece sonuçta.

Yazını teslim etmeden önce şu maddeleri sırayla kontrol et:

Toplam 270-300 kelime ve 4 paragraf mı? (5 paragraf yok)
Giriş soruyu parafraz etti mi ve kendi görüşünü sezdiren bir tez cümlesi var mı?
Body 1 ve Body 2 iki farklı görüşü mi işliyor ve dengeli (yaklaşık eşit uzunluk) mi?
Her gövde İddia → Gerekçe → Örnek → Sonuç zincirini tamamlıyor mu? Her birinde somut bir örnek var mı?
Body 2’ye “On the other hand” ile geçtin mi?
Gövdeler tarafsız mı (rapor fiilleri: argue, contend, believe, point out)?
Sonuçta kendi görüşünü “In my view…” ile net olarak verdin mi?
Girişteki eğilim ile sonuçtaki yargı çelişmiyor mu?
Sonuçta yeni fikir/örnek eklemedin, yalnızca özetleyip yargı verdin mi?

Altın kural: Önce iki görüşü adil sun, sonra sonuçta net bir taraf tut. Denge + netlik = Band 8+.