Module 1. WRITING. Tips

🎓 Level 1: C1 Advanced (CAE)

Focus: Argument construction, clear organization, and specific vocabulary.

Part 1: Compulsory Essay

1. You have listened to a panel discussion on the environmental impact of manufacturing electric vehicles (EVs). You have made the notes below:

Environmental costs of producing Electric Vehicles:

• Mining for raw materials (lithium, cobalt)

• Energy used in battery manufacturing

• Transportation of components globally

Some opinions expressed in the discussion:

• "Digging up the earth for battery metals is just as bad as drilling for oil."

• "Factories that make batteries often run on coal, which defeats the purpose."

• "Shipping parts around the world creates a huge carbon footprint before the car is even driven."

Write an essay discussing two of the costs in your notes. You should explain which cost is more damaging to the "green" image of electric cars, giving reasons in support of your answer. (220–260 words)

Part 2: Choice

2. Article You see this post on a university blog:

How to Handle Climate Deniers? We all know someone who refuses to believe the science behind climate change. Is it better to argue with facts, or does that just make them angrier? We are looking for articles on the best way to communicate with skeptics. Write your article.

3. Report You work for a logistics company that is considering switching its fleet to electric vans. Your boss has asked you to write a report on the feasibility of this switch. You should consider the availability of charging points, the cost of electricity versus fuel, and the potential benefits to the company’s image. Write your report.

📘 C1 Teacher's Guide: Tips & Models

C1 Part 1 (Essay) Strategy

• Tip: In C1, you must choose exactly two points. Do not list all three. You need a clear paragraph for Point A, a clear paragraph for Point B, and a conclusion that selects the "winner" (which is more significant).

• Key Vocab: Extraction, finite resources, emissions, supply chain, paradox.

C1 Model Answer (Essay) The Hidden Cost of Green Technology

The shift towards electric vehicles (EVs) is widely regarded as a necessary step in combatting global warming. However, the production of these vehicles carries its own environmental price tag. Two significant issues undermine their eco-friendly reputation: the extraction of raw materials and the energy-intensive manufacturing process.

The most contentious issue is undoubtedly the mining of raw materials. Key components like lithium and cobalt are often extracted in ecologically sensitive areas. This process can lead to soil degradation and water contamination, causing local ecosystems to collapse. Critics argue that destroying biodiversity to save the climate is a dangerous contradiction. If the sourcing of these materials is not regulated, the "green" revolution may simply shift environmental damage from the air to the ground.

Another major concern is the energy required to manufacture the batteries. Currently, many "Gigafactories" are located in countries still heavily reliant on coal. Consequently, a brand-new EV may have a higher carbon footprint at the moment of purchase than a conventional petrol car. It takes years of driving before the emissions "break even."

In my view, the mining of raw materials poses the greater threat to the image of electric cars. While manufacturing can eventually be powered by renewable energy, the physical destruction of landscapes for mining is often irreversible. Until the industry develops sustainable extraction methods, the claim that EVs are strictly "good for the planet" remains open to debate.

C1 Part 2 (Article) Strategy

• Tip: C1 Articles need to be lively. Use direct questions ("Have you ever...?") and strong adjectives.

• Key Vocab: Skepticism, scientific consensus, polarizing, common ground.

C1 Model Answer (Article) Can We Talk? Bridging the Gap with Climate Skeptics

Have you ever found yourself in a heated argument at a dinner party because someone claimed that global warming is a hoax? It is a frustrating experience, yet it is becoming increasingly common. As the evidence for climate change mounts, so too does the resistance from deniers. So, how should we handle these difficult conversations?

The natural instinct is to bombard the skeptic with data. We want to show them the graphs of melting ice caps and rising temperatures. However, psychology suggests this often backfires. When people feel attacked, they retreat further into their beliefs. Instead of changing minds, we end up creating a bigger divide.

A better approach is to focus on shared values rather than abstract science. Most people, regardless of their political views, care about clean air, healthy forests, and the safety of their homes. By discussing local changes—like the weird weather affecting farmers or the pollution in our rivers—we can find common ground.

Ultimately, we may not convince a hardline denier overnight. But by staying calm and relating the issue to everyday life, we stand a better chance of being heard than if we simply shout the statistics.

🎓 Level 2: C2 Proficiency (CPE)

Focus: Nuance, abstract ideas, sophisticated register, and synthesis of texts.

Part 1: Compulsory Essay

1. Read the two texts below. Write an essay summarising and evaluating the key points from both texts. Use your own words throughout as far as possible, and include your own ideas in your answers. (240–280 words)

Text 1: The Material Limit The transition to a decarbonized economy is often presented as a problem of political will, but it is fundamentally a problem of physics. The sheer volume of raw materials—copper, lithium, rare earth elements—required to replace fossil fuel infrastructure is staggering. We risk hitting a "mineral wall" where the scarcity of materials drives prices up, making green technology the preserve of the wealthy. Furthermore, the geopolitical race to secure these resources is already creating new tensions, suggesting that the wars of the future may be fought over batteries, not oil.

Text 2: The Psychology of Denial Why, in the face of overwhelming consensus, does climate denial persist? It is rarely a matter of intelligence; rather, it is a mechanism of psychological defence. Acknowledging the severity of the climate crisis requires accepting that our current way of life is unsustainable. For many, this realization is too traumatic to process. Denial, therefore, acts as a buffer against existential dread. Combating this requires empathy, not ridicule; we must offer a vision of a positive future, rather than just a prophecy of doom.

Write your essay.

Part 2: Choice

2. Letter A leading newspaper recently published an editorial arguing that "Electric cars are a scam designed to save the auto industry, not the planet." You decide to write a letter to the editor. You should critique this argument, acknowledging the imperfections of EVs (such as raw material issues) but arguing that they are a crucial transitional technology. Write your letter.

3. Review You have read a non-fiction book regarding the future of energy (e.g., The End of Oil or a fictional equivalent). Write a review for an academic journal. Your review should evaluate the author's arguments regarding renewable energy versus nuclear power and assess whether the book is suitable for a general readership or only for experts. Write your review.

📘 C2 Teacher's Guide: Tips & Models

C2 Part 1 (Essay) Strategy

• Tip: At C2, you are not just listing points. You must synthesize (combine) the ideas from the texts and evaluatethem (give a complex opinion). You need to find the thematic link between the texts. In this case, Text 1 is about physical/material limits, and Text 2 is about psychological limits.

• Key Vocab: Geopolitical ramifications, cognitive dissonance, existential, scarcity, imperative.

  
  

C2 Model Answer (Essay) The transition to a sustainable future is obstructed by two formidable barriers: the physical scarcity of resources and the psychological rigidity of the human mind. The texts provided examine these distinct but interconnected challenges, highlighting that technology alone cannot solve the climate crisis.

The first text addresses the material reality of "going green." It posits that the shift from fossil fuels to renewables is not merely a political choice but a logistical nightmare involving raw materials. I agree that the demand for copper and lithium creates a "mineral wall," potentially replacing the oil wars of the twentieth century with conflicts over battery components. This suggests that unless we innovate regarding material efficiency and recycling, we may simply be trading one form of resource dependency for another.

The second text pivots to the internal landscape, arguing that climate denial is a defense mechanism against "existential dread." This is a crucial insight. It implies that bombarding skeptics with data is futile because their resistance is emotional, not intellectual. To overcome this, the narrative must shift from impending doom to the tangible benefits of a cleaner world.

In conclusion, both texts suggest that the path to a green economy is more complex than simply building solar panels. We are constrained by the earth's finite crust and by our own cognitive dissonance. A successful transition requires a dual approach: a diplomatic strategy to manage resource scarcity and a compassionate communication strategy to dismantle the psychological barriers of denial.

C2 Part 2 (Letter) Strategy

• Tip: A C2 letter to the editor must be polite but intellectually rigorous. You should use "concession" structures (e.g., Albeit, While it is true that...) to show you understand the complexity before delivering your main argument.

• Key Vocab: Reductionist, transitional phase, net-zero, imperfect solution, mitigate.

C2 Model Answer (Letter) To the Editor,

I am writing in response to your recent editorial, which dismissed the electric vehicle (EV) industry as little more than a "scam" to prop up automotive manufacturers. While the article raised valid points regarding the environmental cost of manufacturing, I fear it presented a dangerously reductionist view of a complex transition.

It is undeniable that EVs are not a panacea. As your editorial noted, the extraction of lithium and the management of supply chains present serious ethical and ecological challenges. To claim EVs are "zero emission" from birth is indeed misleading. However, to label them a "scam" ignores their vital role as a transitional technology. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The internal combustion engine has had over a century to reach peak efficiency; electric drivetrains are arguably in their infancy and are improving rapidly.

Furthermore, dismissing EVs provides fuel to those who wish to delay action on climate change altogether. The solution is not to abandon electric mobility, but to demand rigorous recycling standards and cleaner grids. We must view the EV not as the final destination, but as a necessary bridge away from our reliance on fossil fuels.

Yours faithfully,

[Student Name]