Luyện theo cấu trúc Cambridge IELTS 7 · Writing Task 1 + 2: Coffee Farming & Infrastructure Spending

The table compares four regions of a country in terms of the number of coffee farms they had and the quantity of coffee they produced in 2005 and 2025.

Overall, while the total number of farms remained almost unchanged at just under 15,000, national output rose considerably, from 127,000 to 168,000 tonnes. The most dramatic growth took place in the Southern Plateau, whereas the Coastal Hills declined on both measures.

Central Valley was the largest producer in both years, with around 7,000 farms and an output that edged up from 61,000 to 64,000 tonnes. Highland North followed a different pattern: the number of farms there fell from 4,200 to 2,900, yet production increased from 38,000 to 52,000 tonnes, suggesting much higher productivity per farm.

The Southern Plateau was the smallest region in 2005, with only 1,300 farms producing 9,000 tonnes. Over the following two decades, however, its farms almost tripled in number to 3,600 and its output rose more than fourfold to 41,000 tonnes. By contrast, the Coastal Hills lost more than half of its farms, which fell from 2,500 to 1,100, and its production dropped from 19,000 to 11,000 tonnes.

Every government has a limited budget for transport, and it must decide whether to repair what already exists or to build something new. While both are necessary, I believe that maintenance should usually come first, with new projects funded only when there is a clear need.

Those who favour new infrastructure argue that it drives economic growth. A new bridge across a river, for example, can cut journey times dramatically, open up new areas for housing and industry, and connect rural communities to jobs and services in cities. In fast-growing countries, where the population of urban areas is rising every year, existing networks are often simply too small, and repairing an overcrowded road will not reduce congestion. From this perspective, spending only on maintenance would mean accepting that the country stays where it is.

On the other hand, there are strong arguments for looking after what has already been built. Roads, bridges and railways deteriorate gradually, and if minor repairs are delayed, the eventual cost of fixing them can be many times higher. More importantly, poorly maintained structures can be dangerous: a bridge that is not regularly inspected may need to be closed suddenly, causing major disruption, or in the worst case it may fail.

In my view, the most responsible approach is to treat maintenance as a basic obligation and to judge new projects carefully against it. A new railway line is of little value if the existing network is unsafe or unreliable. Therefore, governments should first ensure that current infrastructure is in good condition and then invest in new schemes where population growth or economic need clearly justifies them.

In conclusion, although new infrastructure can bring significant benefits, keeping existing roads and bridges safe and functional should be the priority.