top of page

There Should be Strict Laws to Control The Noise Because of The Disturbance - Task 2 Band 9 Essay

Updated: Mar 17

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.


Write about the following topic:


Some people think that there should be strict laws to control the amount of noise a person makes because of the disturbance it causes to people.

Discuss the advantages and disadvantages.


Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge and experiences.


You should write at least 250 words.


Task 2 Band 9 Essay Sample (There should be strict laws to control the amount of noise a person makes because of the disturbance it causes to people.)

Get your personalised IELTS Essay Feedback from a former examiner


Download IELTS eBooks, get everything you need to achieve a high band score



Model Essay 1

The burgeoning issue of noise pollution has led to calls for stringent regulations to curtail the acoustic footprint of individuals, a matter that has both its proponents and detractors. This essay posits that while such laws are imperative for ensuring public tranquility and health, they may inadvertently impinge on personal freedoms and cultural practices. The discourse will explore the benefits of noise regulation, notably in public health and environment, against its drawbacks, including potential infringement on personal rights and cultural expressions.


On the one hand, the advantages of imposing strict noise control laws are manifold and significant. Primarily, these laws could substantially enhance public health by mitigating hearing impairments, reducing stress, and curtailing sleep disturbances associated with persistent noise pollution. For instance, the World Health Organization has robustly linked excessive noise to a myriad of health issues, suggesting that quieter environments could foster a healthier, more productive populace. Furthermore, wildlife would immensely benefit from reduced noise levels, as many species rely on sound for essential functions such as communication, navigation, and predator avoidance. Consequently, stringent noise regulations could significantly contribute to both environmental conservation and urban tranquility, making cities more livable.


Conversely, the enforcement of strict noise laws presents notable challenges and complexities. Such regulations could inadvertently infringe on individual freedoms, particularly in vibrant multicultural societies where loud festivities are integral to cultural expression and community bonding. Additionally, the subjective nature of 'noise' complicates legislation efforts, making it difficult to legislate without adversely affecting normal social activities or industries dependent on high decibel operations, such as construction and entertainment. This scenario underscores the need for a delicate balance between the public good and individual rights, necessitating the development of comprehensive guidelines that thoughtfully accommodate various needs and contexts, thus ensuring a harmonious coexistence.


In conclusion, while strict noise control laws promise a plethora of benefits for public health and environmental conservation, they must be crafted with careful consideration for personal freedoms and cultural practices. The optimal approach lies in implementing regulations that protect against the adverse effects of noise pollution while respecting the diversity of social and cultural expressions.

Download IELTS eBooks, get everything you need to achieve a high band score



Model Essay 2

The contemporary debate on the necessity of stringent noise control laws underscores a critical societal dilemma. This essay advocates for the balanced implementation of such laws, highlighting their potential to significantly ameliorate public health and environmental quality, while also acknowledging the challenges they pose to individual liberties and cultural practices. The ensuing discussion will delve into the multifaceted benefits of noise regulation, juxtaposed against the imperative of safeguarding personal freedoms and cultural expressions.


Stringent noise control laws offer profound public health benefits by mitigating the pervasive effects of noise pollution. Such legislation could dramatically reduce the incidence of noise-induced hearing loss, stress-related illnesses, and sleep disruption, thereby enhancing overall well-being and productivity. A pertinent example is the World Health Organization's endorsement of reduced noise levels to prevent a range of health complications. Additionally, these laws hold promise for environmental preservation, offering a sanctuary for wildlife whose survival and reproductive success are often compromised by the cacophony of urban environments. This dual benefit underscores the necessity of robust noise regulations for fostering healthier communities and ecosystems.


However, the enactment of rigorous noise control measures is not without its detractors. Critics argue that these laws could encroach upon personal freedoms, particularly in diverse societies where loud celebrations constitute an essential facet of cultural identity. Furthermore, the subjective perception of noise complicates the enforcement of universal standards, potentially stifling social interaction and economic activities in sectors like construction and entertainment. Therefore, the challenge lies in formulating noise regulations that are both effective and equitable, accommodating the needs of a diverse populace while ensuring public and environmental health.


In conclusion, while the benefits of stringent noise control laws are undeniable, their successful implementation requires a nuanced approach that balances health and environmental gains with the preservation of cultural diversity and individual freedoms.


Download IELTS eBooks, get everything you need to achieve a high band score



Model Essay 3

A lot of the people believe that the government should regulate the level of noise a person can produce to ensure that it does not bother others. While governments’ intervention on noise reduction is definitely welcoming by victims, it might incur a significant cost on some people’s free livings.


One the one hand, like most things in our lives, if the government regulates the amount of sound a person can make, regardless of using his mouth, audio devices or other means, the people around them are more likely to appreciate the law. For example, thousands of complaints are filed in police stations every day all over the world against the people who play loud music that bothers their neighbours. So, if laws are imposed how much noise is allowed to be generated, it will reduce the number of complaints the government has to deal with which in turn can save a significant government fund. Moreover, it can make the environment calmer and quieter, which eventually help us live a healthier life.


On the other hand, the first question that some might raise is whether it is affecting our freedom of expression, specially for the people like musicians, concert goers and the music loving generations. It might also affect traditional, cultural and religious occasions. For example, many religions require regular call for prayers which is done using loudspeakers. Also, weddings and parties without loud music and events are just bland and boring. So, imposing limit on noise creation can upset a lot of people and stir up anger and hatred against the interfering authority.


To summarize, a proper government intervention on the level of noise creation is always welcoming by general people, because excessive sound damages health and tranquillity. However, it comes at the cost of people’s freedom of lifestyle, as it interferes the comfort zone of a group of people.


Get your personalised IELTS Essay Feedback from a former examiner


Download IELTS eBooks, get everything you need to achieve a high band score

0 comments

Bình luận

Đã xếp hạng 0/5 sao.
Chưa có xếp hạng

Thêm điểm xếp hạng
bottom of page