Back to Tutorials
One or two sentences, done well — restate your position, then close
Every Task 2 conclusion has exactly one job: tie your essay back together — restate your position in new words, then give one final joined-up judgement. This works for any essay type — see how it applies to the same agree/disagree question from the introductions tutorial below.
✎ Watch it happen
✓ Job 1 — restate your position
✓ Job 2 — one final, joined-up judgement
That's it. New points, fresh examples, extra explanation — none of that belongs here.
insufficient→not a complete solution
without complementary policies→a combination of policies
...same idea, rebuilt in different words, not copy-pasted from the introduction:
Thesis says "…this measure alone would be insufficient without complementary policies…"
Conclusion says "…it is not, by itself, a complete solution to traffic and pollution…"
New idea ✗ Governments could also tax private car ownership more heavily.
Already established ✓ "…wider policies to discourage car use and improve network coverage…"
Both ideas are reasonable — but only one was actually argued in the body paragraphs above.
Too long Re-listing every point from both body paragraphs, one by one…
Just right 1–2 sentences: restate, then one final judgement. Done.
The same question, again
"With traffic jams and pollution increasing every year in big cities, some people say that public transport should be free in big cities to help reduce these problems which are caused by cars. To what extent do you agree or disagree?"
The full essay — introduction and body paragraphs recapped, then the conclusion
As urban congestion and air pollution continue to worsen, it has been suggested that eliminating public transport fares in cities would ease the problems caused by private vehicles. While removing fares would likely encourage some people to leave their cars at home, this measure alone would be insufficient without complementary policies to genuinely solve urban traffic and pollution.
There is a reasonable case for free public transport. Removing the cost barrier would make buses and trains a noticeably more attractive option for commuters who currently drive out of habit or convenience, encouraging a real shift away from private cars. Luxembourg, which became the first country to make all public transport free nationwide in 2020, was motivated partly by exactly this logic, hoping cheaper, easier access to buses and trams would ease its notoriously heavy road congestion. Free travel would also benefit lower-income residents disproportionately, since they spend a larger share of their income on transport costs.
However, removing fares alone does not address every cause of urban congestion and pollution. Many drivers choose cars for reasons unrelated to cost, such as convenience, comfort, or routes that public transport simply does not cover well, so scrapping fares does nothing to fix an inadequate network. There is also a funding problem: without fare revenue, governments must find money elsewhere, and a system that becomes overcrowded or unreliable due to reduced investment could end up discouraging the very shift it was meant to encourage.
In conclusion, while making public transport free could encourage some drivers to switch and would particularly help lower-income commuters, it is not, by itself, a complete solution to traffic and pollution in cities. A combination of free or cheaper transport with wider policies to discourage car use and improve network coverage would be far more likely to succeed.
DEB
4 things to know about Task 2 conclusions
Audio: DEB (ElevenLabs)