Problem & SolutionProblem / Solution Essay Nasıl Yazılır

IELTS Writing Task 2'de karşına iki yakın akraba soru tipi çıkar: problem & solution ve cause & solution. İkisi de senden aynı şeyi ister: bir olgunun neden ortaya çıktığını (sebep/problem) ve nasıl düzeltilebileceğini (çözüm) açıklamak. Soru kökü genellikle şu kalıplardadır: “What problems does this cause and what solutions can you suggest?” ya da “Why is this happening and what can be done about it?”

Bu tipte pozisyon (görüş) beyan etmek zorunda değilsin; senden istenen bir tartışma değil, bir çözümleme ve öneri paketidir. Ama bu, essay'in dağınık olabileceği anlamına gelmez. Puanı belirleyen tek şey vardır: çözümlerin sebeplerle mantıksal olarak eşleşmesi.

Metodumuz her zaman dört paragraftır — beş asla. Beşinci paragraf, sınırlı 270-300 kelimeyi böler ve her fikri sığlaştırır. Dört paragraf şöyle dağılır:

• Introduction (~45-55 kelime): Soruyu kendi kelimelerinle parafraze et. Ardından tek tez cümlesinde hem ana sebep(ler)i hem de ana çözüm(ler)i haber ver. Bu cümle, essay'in yol haritasıdır.
• Body 1 — Sebepler/Problemler (~80-90 kelime): İki sebep sun. Her sebek için İDDİA → GEREKÇE → ÖRNEK → SONUÇ zincirini işlet: sebebi söyle, neden geçerli olduğunu açıkla, somutlaştıran bir örnek ver, mikro-sonuca bağla.
• Body 2 — Çözümler (~80-90 kelime): İki çözüm sun, ama rastgele değil: her çözüm Body 1'deki bir sebebi hedefler. Aynı İDDİA → GEREKÇE → ÖRNEK → SONUÇ zinciri geçerlidir.
• Conclusion (~30-40 kelime): Sebepleri ve çözümleri tek cümlede topla, kısa bir yargı ekle. Yeni bilgi yok.

In IELTS Writing Task 2, you encounter two closely related question types: problem & solution and cause & solution. Both ask you the same thing: to explain why a phenomenon occurs (cause/problem) and how it can be fixed (solution). The question stem is usually in the following patterns: “What problems does this cause and what solutions can you suggest?” or “Why is this happening and what can be done about it?”

In this type, you are not required to state a position; what is asked of you is not a discussion but an analysis and proposal package. However, this does not mean that the essay can be disorganized. There is only one thing that determines the score: the logical matching of solutions with causes.

Our method is always four paragraphs — never five. A fifth paragraph divides the limited 270-300 words and shallowens each idea. The four paragraphs are distributed as follows:

• Introduction (~45-55 words): Paraphrase the question in your own words. Then, in a single thesis statement, indicate both the main cause(s) and the main solution(s). This sentence serves as the roadmap for the essay.
• Body 1 — Causes (~80-90 words): Present two causes. For each cause, apply the CLAIM → REASON → EXAMPLE → CONCLUSION chain: state the cause, explain why it is valid, provide a concrete example, and link it to a micro-conclusion.
• Body 2 — Solutions (~80-90 words): Present two solutions, but not randomly: each solution targets a cause in Body 1. The same CLAIM → REASON → EXAMPLE → CONCLUSION chain applies.
• Conclusion (~30-40 words): Summarize the causes and solutions in a single sentence, adding a brief judgment. No new information.

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.

Model cevap (287 kelime)

Below is a real IELTS question of this type, its visual, and a 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.

Model answer (287 words)

Bu tipin tamamı tek bir beceriye dayanır: çözümü sebebe bağlamak. Zayıf essay'lerde adaylar Body 2'de “akla gelen” genel önerileri (“hükümet yatırım yapmalı”, “insanlar bilinçlenmeli”) sıralar; bu öneriler Body 1'de anlatılan sebeplerle konuşmaz. Sonuç: yüksek görünen ama içi boş bir cevap. Aşağıdaki adımlar planı bir dakikada kurar:

The entirety of this type relies on a single skill: linking the solution to the cause. In weak essays, candidates list “common suggestions” (“the government should invest”, “people should be more aware”) in Body 2; these suggestions do not relate to the causes discussed in Body 1. The result: an answer that appears high but is empty. The following steps create a plan in a minute:

Doğru dil kalıpları, hem eşleşmeyi görünür kılar hem de “Lexical Resource” ve “Grammatical Range” puanını yükseltir. Sebepleri tanıtan, çözümleri öneren ve ikisini birbirine bağlayan üç ayrı takım kullan. Tekrar eden “because / so” kalıplarından kaçın.

The correct language patterns make the match visible and increase the “Lexical Resource” and “Grammatical Range” scores. Use three separate sets: one for introducing causes, one for proposing solutions, and one for linking the two. Avoid repetitive patterns like “because / so.”

Tipik soru:

In many countries, the amount of household waste that people produce is steadily increasing. Why is this happening, and what measures can be taken to address the problem?

Aşağıdaki model, dört paragraf ve 284 kelimedir. Sebepler ve çözümler birebir eşlenmiştir (S1→Ç1, S2→Ç2).

[Introduction] The volume of household waste generated across the world is rising at an alarming rate. This essay will argue that the trend is driven chiefly by aggressive consumerism and excessive packaging, and that it can be curbed through targeted taxation and stricter regulation of manufacturers.

[Body 1 — Causes] The principal cause of mounting waste is the culture of disposability that now dominates modern economies. Because manufacturers deliberately design products with short lifespans, consumers replace phones, clothes and appliances far more frequently than necessity dictates. A second, closely related factor is the overuse of packaging: supermarkets routinely wrap even fresh produce in several layers of plastic to make it more attractive on the shelf. This convenience-driven marketing persuades shoppers to buy far more than they can consume. As a result, the average family discards enormous quantities of material that could easily have been avoided.

[Body 2 — Solutions] These problems can be addressed if governments intervene at both ends of the supply chain. To counter planned obsolescence, authorities could impose a heavy tax on goods that cannot be repaired, thereby forcing companies to build durable products and rewarding consumers who keep them longer. To tackle excessive packaging, legislation should oblige retailers to use recyclable or biodegradable materials and to eliminate unnecessary wrapping altogether. Germany's packaging laws, which make producers financially responsible for the waste they create, demonstrate how effectively such measures can reduce landfill. Crucially, because this approach shifts the burden onto producers, it addresses the root of the problem rather than its symptoms.

[Conclusion] In conclusion, the surge in waste stems largely from throwaway consumption and wasteful packaging, but decisive taxation and firm regulation of producers offer a realistic remedy. Only sustained governmental action, in my view, will reverse this damaging trend.

Türkçe analiz

Introduction: İlk cümle soruyu parafraze eder (“amount of household waste → volume of household waste… rising”). İkinci cümle tek başına iki sebebi (consumerism, packaging) ve iki çözümü (taxation, regulation) haber verir — essay'in yol haritası. Görüş beyanı yok, çünkü tip bunu gerektirmiyor.

Body 1 (sebepler): İki net sebep. S1 = disposability/planned obsolescence (“The principal cause is…”), S2 = aşırı ambalaj (“A second, closely related factor is…”). Her sebep gerekçe + örnekle (telefon/kıyafet, süpermarket plastiği) desteklenip “As a result…” ile mikro-sonuca bağlanıyor. İDDİA → GEREKÇE → ÖRNEK → SONUÇ zinciri eksiksiz.

Body 2 (çözümler) — eşleşme: Ç1 = tamir edilemeyen ürünlere vergi; bu doğrudan S1'i (kısa ömürlü tasarım) hedefler (“To counter planned obsolescence… forcing companies to build durable products”). Ç2 = geri dönüştürülebilir ambalaj yasası; bu doğrudan S2'yi (aşırı ambalaj) hedefler (“To tackle excessive packaging…”). Almanya örneği çözümü inandırıcı kılar. Sıralama simetriktir: S1→Ç1, S2→Ç2.

Conclusion: Sebep ve çözüm tek cümlede toplanıp (“stems largely from… but… offer a realistic remedy”) kısa bir yargıyla (“in my view… will reverse”) kapanır. Yeni fikir yok.

Typical question:

In many countries, the amount of household waste that people produce is steadily increasing. Why is this happening, and what measures can be taken to address the problem?

The following model consists of four paragraphs and 284 words. Causes and solutions are directly matched (C1→S1, C2→S2).

[Introduction] The volume of household waste generated across the world is rising at an alarming rate. This essay will argue that the trend is driven chiefly by aggressive consumerism and excessive packaging, and that it can be curbed through targeted taxation and stricter regulation of manufacturers.

[Body 1 — Causes] The principal cause of mounting waste is the culture of disposability that now dominates modern economies. Because manufacturers deliberately design products with short lifespans, consumers replace phones, clothes and appliances far more frequently than necessity dictates. A second, closely related factor is the overuse of packaging: supermarkets routinely wrap even fresh produce in several layers of plastic to make it more attractive on the shelf. This convenience-driven marketing persuades shoppers to buy far more than they can consume. As a result, the average family discards enormous quantities of material that could easily have been avoided.

[Body 2 — Solutions] These problems can be addressed if governments intervene at both ends of the supply chain. To counter planned obsolescence, authorities could impose a heavy tax on goods that cannot be repaired, thereby forcing companies to build durable products and rewarding consumers who keep them longer. To tackle excessive packaging, legislation should oblige retailers to use recyclable or biodegradable materials and to eliminate unnecessary wrapping altogether. Germany's packaging laws, which make producers financially responsible for the waste they create, demonstrate how effectively such measures can reduce landfill. Crucially, because this approach shifts the burden onto producers, it addresses the root of the problem rather than its symptoms.

[Conclusion] In conclusion, the surge in waste stems largely from throwaway consumption and wasteful packaging, but decisive taxation and firm regulation of producers offer a realistic remedy. Only sustained governmental action, in my view, will reverse this damaging trend.

Turkish analysis

Introduction: The first sentence paraphrases the question (“amount of household waste → volume of household waste… rising”). The second sentence independently indicates two causes (consumerism, packaging) and two solutions (taxation, regulation) — the roadmap of the essay. There is no opinion statement because the type does not require it.

Body 1 (causes): Two clear causes. C1 = disposability/planned obsolescence (“The principal cause is…”), C2 = excessive packaging (“A second, closely related factor is…”). Each cause is supported by a reason + example (phone/clothing, supermarket plastic) and linked to a micro-conclusion with “As a result…”. The CLAIM → REASON → EXAMPLE → CONCLUSION chain is complete.

Body 2 (solutions) — matching: S1 = tax on non-repairable products; this directly targets C1 (short lifespan design) (“To counter planned obsolescence… forcing companies to build durable products”). S2 = law on recyclable packaging; this directly targets C2 (excessive packaging) (“To tackle excessive packaging…”). The example of Germany makes the solution credible. The order is symmetric: C1→S1, C2→S2.

Conclusion: The causes and solutions are summarized in a single sentence (“stems largely from… but… offer a realistic remedy”) and closed with a brief judgment (“in my view… will reverse”). No new ideas.

Yazmadan önce planı, yazdıktan sonra metni bu listeyle denetle:

• Dört paragraf mı? Intro / Body 1 (sebepler) / Body 2 (çözümler) / Conclusion — beş değil.
• 270-300 kelime mi? Az ise gerekçe/örnek ekle, fazla ise tekrarı kes.
• İki sebep + iki çözüm var mı? Simetrik ve sayıca eşit.
• Her çözüm bir sebebe eşleniyor mu? S1→Ç1, S2→Ç2; aynı sırada. Her çözüm cümlesine “hangi sebebi çözüyor?” testini uygula.
• Her body İDDİA → GEREKÇE → ÖRNEK → SONUÇ zincirini taşıyor mu?
• Örnek/otorite var mı? En az bir gerçek politika veya somut sahne.
• Introduction soruyu parafraze edip yol haritasını veriyor mu?
• Conclusion yargıyla kapanıyor, yeni fikir eklemiyor mu?
• Hedefli fiiller kullanıldı mı? tackle / address / counter / curb / oblige / impose.
• Dilbilgisi çeşitliliği var mı? “thereby + -ing”, “which…”, “because…” gibi en az iki karmaşık yapı.

Before writing, check the plan with this list, and after writing, review the text:

• Is it four paragraphs? Intro / Body 1 (causes) / Body 2 (solutions) / Conclusion — not five.
• Is it 270-300 words? If too few, add reasons/examples; if too many, cut repetitions.
• Are there two causes + two solutions? Symmetric and equal in number.
• Does each solution match a cause? C1→S1, C2→S2; in the same order. Apply the “which cause does this solve?” test to each solution sentence.
• Does each body carry the CLAIM → REASON → EXAMPLE → CONCLUSION chain?
• Is there an example/authority? At least one real policy or concrete scene.
• Does the introduction paraphrase the question and provide a roadmap?
• Does the conclusion close with a judgment, adding no new ideas?
• Are targeted verbs used? tackle / address / counter / curb / oblige / impose.
• Is there grammatical diversity? At least two complex structures like “thereby + -ing”, “which…”, “because…”.