air and water pollution essay ielts

Click here to add your own comments

Return to Writing Submissions - Task 2.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

Bargain eBook Deal! 30% Discount

All 4 Writing eBooks for just  $25.86 Find out more >>

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Skimming and Scanning Tips for IELTS Reading

Jun 21, 24 02:29 AM

5 Key Grammar Rules for IELTS

Jun 14, 24 10:05 AM

Referencing in IELTS Reading: Comprehending the Text

Jun 08, 24 05:30 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

Water pollution (Corrected Essay)

Pollution of rivers, lakes and seas is a major concern for people who seek to protect the environment. Pollution of rivers, lakes and seas is a major concern for people who seek to protect the environment. What are the possible causes of water pollution, and what effects does this have on animal life and human society?

Topic: Pollution of rivers, lakes and seas is a major concern for people who seek to protect the environment.

What are the possible causes of water pollution, and what effects does this have on animal life and human society?

Sample answer:

An essential element of the ecosystem is water. Water pollution occurs when harmful chemicals or microorganisms are released into water bodies, which results in the degradation of animal and human’s life quality.

The most common cause of water pollution is the direct disposal of industrial and human waste into the surface water. Another reason worth mentioning is the oil spill.Since the dawn of industrialization, numerous factories have been discharging toxic chemical compounds such as metallic sulfides or cyanides. When being introduced into lakes, rivers, and seas, these toxic wastes poison freshwater or saltwater animals and plants, subsequently destroy the ecosystem. Even when the industrial waste is buried in the ground, they can still permeate the soil to pollute the underground water, thus begin the process again.

Another cause of water pollution is human waste. Various kinds of pathogenic bacteria live in human feces, and they may cause gastrointestinal infection if they appear in the water supply. Oil spills are also the reason for sea pollution. Most of the marine animals cannot digest oil, or cleanse the spilling oil on their feathers. Therefore, they will die soon unless there are human interventions. The spill also adversely affect seawater, which damages the tourist industry of coastal regions.

To summarize, water pollution is mostly the result of oil spills and industrial or human waste disposal. It severely affects the environment and subsequently the life of animals and human.

(275 words)

Corrected essay

An important feature in a cause-effect essay is the lack of the author’s opinion . The causes and the effects of a phenomenon are completely facts - they are not subjected to your perspective. Therefore, completely avoid using “I” or “from my opinion” in this type of essay.

The author has successfully written the introduction. He starts the essay with a “hook” sentence (highlighting the relevance of the topic question - water is important, so we must care about water pollution). He also provides an explanation of water pollution, as well as its effects.

The most common cause of water pollution is the direct disposal of industrial into the surface water. Since the dawn of industrialization, numerous factories have been discharging toxic chemical compounds such as metallic sulfides or cyanides. When being introduced into lakes, rivers, and seas, these toxic wastes poison animals and plants, subsequently destroy the ecosystem. Even when the industrial waste is buried in the ground, they can still permeate the soil to pollute the underground water, thus begin the process again.

Many grammatical structures are presented in the above paragraph.

The author uses the present perfect continous tense to talk about an ongoing trend.

The first sentence in this paragraph is a simple sentence. The second and the third are complex sentences. The last is a compound-complex one. Mixing up various sentence types will give you good mark in Grammatical Range & Accuracy.

The author has used some connectives: “when”, subsequently”, “even”, “thus”. Using cohesive devices without gaining unwanted attraction will raise your band score in Coherence and Cohesion.

Another cause of water pollution is human waste. Various species of pathogenic bacteria live in human feces, and they will cause gastrointestinal infection if they appear in the water supply. Saltwater fishes may die because of the depletion of oxygen levels in seawater caused by ocean dumping.

This body paragraph is kinda underdeveloped. There is only 3 sentences, and the last sentence does not really connect to the idea of “human waste harms the environment”. The author should write more here, since his essay only has 252 words (barely pass the requirement)

Still, there are some interesting vocab: pathogenic bacteria, gastrointestinal infection, water supply, the depletion of oxygen levels, ocean dumping.

The oil spill, a disaster happens if crude oil is leaked from a petroleum tanker, is also a reason of sea pollution. Most of the marine animals cannot digest oil, or cleanse the spilling oil on their feathers. Therefore, they will die soon unless there are human interventions. The spill also adversely affect seawater, which damages the tourist industry of coastal regions.

Throughout three paragraphs, the author has provided the effect of water pollution on both animal and human life.

Words like “petroleum tanker”, “marine animal”, and “human intervention” are advance enough for the IELTS exam. You don’t have to use words that are too rare or archaic.

Always try to shorten a clause into a phrasal noun. If the author had written like this: “ Therefore, they will die soon unless the government intervenes in oil spills ”, then his writing would have been less concise.

A short but adequate conclusion. Don’t spend too much time to write the introduction and/or the conclusion.

Overall: 9.0

Task Response: 8

✓ sufficiently addresses all parts of the task (the author uses an appropriate writing style for this essay, but he needs to write slightly more). ✓ presents a well-developed response to the question with relevant, extended and supported ideas

Coherence and Cohesion: 9

✓ uses cohesion in such a way that it attracts no attention ✓ skilfully manages paragraphing (the author follows the standard format of a 5-paragraphs essay, with ideas are coherently presented)

Lexical Resource: 9

✓ uses a wide range of vocabulary with very natural and sophisticated control of lexical features; rare minor errors occur only as ‘slips’

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 9

✓ uses a wide range of structures with full flexibility and accuracy; rare minor errors occur only as ‘slips’ (there is no grammatical errors)

----------------------------------------------------------

This essay is corrected by  Anh Tran  -   Let's Write Something Group .

If you want to practice more about writing Task 2, you can join this group:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/351029818650829/

Share with friends

Scan below qr code to share with your friends.

Related IELTS tips

Buying things on the Internet (Corrected essay)

Buying things on the Internet, such as books, air tickets and groceries,...

9 Academic IELTS Writing tips on how to get Band 7

This is the article from one student, Band 7 in IELTS, and here he shares...

Pollution of rivers, lakes and seas is a major concern for people who seek...

The continued rise in the world’s population (Corrected Essay)

The continued rise in the world’s population is the greatest problem...

THE CHARACTERISTICS WE ARE BORN (Corrected Essay)

Research indicates that the characteristics we are born with have much...

Thank you for contacting us!

We have received your message.

We will get back within 48 hours.

You have subscribed successfully.

Thank you for your feedback, we will investigate and resolve the issue within 48 hours.

Your answers has been saved successfully.

Order của bạn

Iot credits của bạn không đủ để thanh toán.

IOT credits của bạn không đủ để thanh toán. Vui lòng mua thêm IOT credits để tiếp tục.

Band 4+: Some argue that air travel should be restricted to stop air pollution. Others, however, are against this opinion. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

In this modern technological era there are many ways to travel from one place to another by different mode of transport. Some people argues that there should be restriction on the airways travel in order to prevent pollution. Whereas, other says that they want the air travel. Both the views and my opinion will be given in upcoming paragraphs.

To begin with , the first view the use of the air travel should be restricted because it causes a lot of the problem to air and it pollutes air .The people who says that the air travel should be restricted they are right as they want to save the environment and want to breathe in fresh air as the airplanes uses the fuel which cause a lot of pollution and airplane travels in air the smoke is directly released in the air and due to this there can be a lot of health problem as the people will not get the fresh air to breathe in so there can be problems of cancer and respiratory problems. For example, a survey was conducted by the united state government in year 2006 it states that environment will face a lot of air problem in the upcoming years.

On the other hand, people say that the they are against because air ways are fast ways to travel and the goods can be transported from one place to another with in a short period of time. To illustrate, if ship takes times 10 days to reach the destination airways can reach in short period of time.

In my opinion, airways are the best mode of transportation and they should not be restricted in order to save time.

Check Your Own Essay On This Topic?

Generate a band-9 sample with your idea, overall band score, task response, coherence & cohesion, lexical resource, grammatical range & accuracy, other topics:, many people in poor countries die from diseases that are curable because they cannot afford the medication required. do you believe that drug companies should make their products available at reduced prices in these countries give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge and experience..

Many people in developing countries die from treatable diseases because the cost of treatment is high. There is debate on whether pharmaceutical companies should offer medications at lower prices. In my opinion, these medications should be provided at a minimal cost or even for free. I will elaborate on my viewpoints and reasons in this […]

Some people believed that we controlling children is good and some believe that allow children what they want to do Discuss both opinions and give your opinion

Regarding childrens broughtup, parents have different mindset based on their personal or sorrounding experiences. Part of the people believe on controlling children behavior while other believe that children should be allow what they want, in my point of view we should follow an intermediate path to keep the children inside bouderies without affecting their problem […]

Now that there are no unknown places left on Earth that individuals can explore, exploration has taken the form of overcoming physical challenges. What is your opinion on this development?

For the last decades we have been facing a problem of the lack of spaces for exploration. People have always been explored new places and now they started to look at themselves and try to take physical challenges. Do we need to counteract that trend and agree a new viable strategy for finding something new […]

More and more people are becoming seriously overweight. Some people think a solution can be to increase the price of fattening foods. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is an issue that a huge number of people becoming overweight. But increasing the cost of fattening food is not a solution. This essay does not agree with that suggestion, but we can focus more on self-awareness in consuming a healthier diet and exercising. Having a healthy diet is proven to cause weight loss. […]

The working week should be shorter and workers should have a longer weekend. DO you agree or disagree?

It is argued that some undergraduates should broaden their horizons by studying other subjects besides the main ones, whereas others think solely paying attention to achieve a qualification is more crucial. From my perspective, I view the former option as a much more beneficial choice for them. There are several reasons why university students should […]

Plans & Pricing

IELTS TOPIC: A Place That Had Air Pollution

03/28/2023 03:27 PM

Things to consider:

• It can be difficult or easy to define "air pollution" , depending on where to live. For example, I haven't experienced any heavy air pollution in my life, at all. But I have seen it on TV and in articles. I've probably had it in my city but I didn't pay attention . So you need to talk about reasons why cities can have air pollution . It becomes clear after that.
• You can make up a story by stating things like:
• I once visited a town/city...(where/when/what?)
• At first, It looked... (positive)
• After a while, I realized that... (pollution)
• The reason why it was polluted was... (reason 1, reason 2)
• At that time I felt... (feeling 1, feeling 2)
• Eventually, I thought...
• Focus on your feelings about air pollution. You can talk in general. For instance:
• I felt worried and afraid...
• I felt disappointed about...
• I felt a little angry about...
• I felt neutral, without any specific feelings because...
• I felt something was off, but I didn't react in any way because...

Part 2: Sample Answer

Although air pollution has been a big discussion in my lifetime , I have to admit that I haven’t seen so much of it, or at least I’m not sure I’ve seen it. Perhaps the reason is that I can’t recognize if a place has polluted air . I’m definitely sure what clean air is, as I’ve been in the countryside and I know the difference in the “ taste ” of the air over there. However, that’s a characteristic of the mountains and the countryside . Can we say that everything except mountain-fresh air is polluted? Probably, especially in the cities.

I talk about the meaning of polluted air in conection to my life.

I’ve definitely seen smog and heavily contaminated air once or twice. Even in the city I live in, we are not safe from this phenomenon . I live in a seaside city that is quite small and compact . On the outskirts of the city, there is a big industrial free-trade zone with many factories and large facilities . Now there is a reason why that zone is far outside of the city – and that is to protect the citizen from pollution. Well, every now or then, the wind will blow in direction of the city and that pollution will land directly at us.

I introduce the place (my city) and the reason for the pollution.

I remember 2 or 3 times last year when the air in the city was heavy , yellowish and it felt contaminated . But even then, I was not sure if that was something I am supposed to stay protected from , or if I should just take it . You see, the problem is that those of us who live in the city, are used to this air. We lived at times when all cars were gasoline or diesel . We simply walked around, breathing all this air without any regret or consideration .

I describe a problem of knowing what "polluted" means.

If I think about it for more than a minute, of course, I agree that we deserve better . I mean there are places covered in smog all year round and that’s awful . I’ve heard about the negative consequences of all this pollution – carcinogens building up in our bodies over time. Don’t forget that the food we eat absorbs all this pollution too. All of this leads to an increase in cancers and other diseases . Well… I hope we make our living environment safer… at least for the next generations .

I finish with my feelings about the topic and air pollution.

Idioms and Phrases

Sentence starters and linking words, vocabulary related to the topic, business phrases, part 3 questions.

In Part 3 we continue to talk about air pollution  and further discuss the effect of this pollution on our society. We then move on to talk about solutions to fight this problem.

Examiner:   I s there more pollution now than in the past?

A case for yes.

• We all know about climate change and the pollution development and industrialization have brought. Many countries, while trying to grow and progress , disrespect their environment for economic growth . This means that, yes, there is much more pollution now than 30, or even 20 years ago.  

A Case for No

• At the same time , many countries have realized that pollution has become a danger to their citizen's life , and have begun taking measures. There are cities and countries that have achieved a lot of progress in fighting pollution and may have actually improved their environment's condition compared to 10 or 20 years ago.

Examiner:   Do you think the city is cleaner or dirtier than the countryside? Why?

Cities and pollution.

• Of course , the cities are more polluted and dirtier than the country. There are many reasons for that, but probably the main one is the high population and the concentration of industry in the cities. Many people moving to cities means high demand for jobs, products, and services, and making all of those requires a ton of resources and energy to create. That causes pollution.

The Country

• The countryside is cleaner mainly because there are fewer people , less industry , and less transportation over there. What's more , people in the countryside tend to care more about the environment and their surroundings , while people in cities tend to be a bit more  selfish and care mostly about themselves, carrying on with their lives. 

Examiner:   What can factories and power plants do to reduce pollutants?

• Plants and factories have to invest in renovation and replacement of their outdated technologies for production. This will help them to reduce the amounts of waste they create dramatically . The problem is quite often that these companies do not invest much or at all in that, and use old, inefficient equipment for many years.

Societal Impact

• Big corporations and producers have to embrace and accept their moral responsibilities to protect society. This means that they should go above and beyond to improve society and invest further in projects that are environmentally-friendly and green . Sadly , very few of them would do what is morally right , as that means higher costs.

Accept responsibility . No seriously, some of the environmental problems we have in our society stem from this very reason. Companies simply refuse to invest in new equipment or fail to update their equipment frequently enough , and by using old outdated technologies they do more pollution. We have a ton of people lecturing us, individuals , to reduce our carbon footprint , but what about those who create the products themselves? Are we supposed to stop buying just so we can force companies to change? That is an ineffective strategy and it’s a waste of time . Companies need to take responsibility and update their machines regularly, or in other words invest in their own business, not the stock market .

Examiner:   Do you think the wind has any effect on pollution? How?

• The wind blowing can bring in a lot of air pollution from other areas of a country or even from another country. A lot of cities move out their manufacturing and industry outside of the larger cities, but then once the wind blows, it brings back all that pollution right back into the cities.
• In areas that have a dry climate , are near a desert , or are being desertified because of logging or other natural reasons , the wind can blow and bring up a lot of dust and sand particles . If the wind is powerful enough, it can carry those particles many kilometers away and cause sand or dust pollution in cities or other areas.

Well, the wind can blow pollution into the cities, even if those cities have removed heavy manufacturing away. I’ve seen this in a few examples around the world but I believe this is what happens regularly in Beijing. The capital of China has been trying to reduce pollution, but often, especially in the winter when it’s coal-burning season , the wind brings all the heavy smog back to town. Another type of air pollution is actually sand and dust which comes from dry areas or deserts , and that can be brought by the wind across large distances as well .

Examiner:  Do you think many companies have been forced to reduce pollutants?

Not exactly....

• To a large extent , many companies have been left to do as they please, because they add too much economic growth , and so governments and politicians have stayed away from heavy punishments and scrutiny . Many companies have received tiny , minor fines that do not force them to change their ways.
• While so far the government hasn't pushed for much regulation , there is increasing public anger towards companies and pollution, and that created the occasional higher push for justice . Perhaps we will see high fines and tough regulations in the near future if we want to restore our planet back to normal.

Some of them have been working on this problem, and some have done close to nothing about it. The reality is that a small number of companies with a large market share are responsible for the largest amount of pollution, be it plastic pollution , air pollution , or water pollution . Many of these large corporations put profits and money above dignity and the environment . Some governments around the world have become increasingly aware of the problem, but unfortunately , they act too slowly and do not punish those companies enough to make them change their attitudes . I hope that in the near future , people start taking this problem seriously .

Examiner:   What can be done by an individual to reduce air pollution?

As an ordinary person.

• For a single person, it can be very difficult to impact the environment alone, but we can take some steps to reduce our carbon footprint . We can drive less, we can cycle more, we can buy less plastic , and opt out of food delivery . We can make better choices when buying clothes and generally shop less online. There are a lot of actions we could take.

As Someone with Power

• People in positions of power are better suited to affect society in one way or another. In terms of air pollution, they can try to run for government , invest money in renewable energy , or even start a green business that can improve society in some way. 

It is very difficult for one person to impact the whole planet, but let’s assume that it is possible. As an ordinary citizen , this person should find ways to reduce his carbon footprint . The person can replace his fossil fuel car with an electric vehicle at first. Then he can make better choices when buying clothes, purchasing l onger-term items rather than fast fashion pieces which are a high polluter in the world. The person should buy less plastic and avoid ordering takeaway as much as possible. Now, if the person is in a position of power , he is much better suited to impact society for the better. He should invest in green technologies and support environmentally-friendly political decisions .

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• Study Abroad Test Prep /

IELTS Daily Essay Topic: Some say that the city has more health benefits while others say the countryside.

• Updated on  
• Jun 26, 2024

Brainstorming Ideas

Reasons for stating the countryside has more benefits:

• Has clean air and low pollution levels, has less traffic and fewer factories.
• Countryside life is more relaxed and less stressful.
• Rural areas provide more opportunities for physical activity and a healthy diet.

Q. Some say that the city side has more health benefits while others say the countryside. Do you agree?

Ans . Whether urban or rural living provides greater health benefits has persisted for a long time. While some people argue that city life provides better healthcare facilities and opportunities for physical activity, I disagree with this view. I believe that the countryside offers more substantial health benefits because of its cleaner environment, lower stress levels and opportunities for a healthy lifestyle. 

Firstly, the countryside is known for its clean air and low pollution level. Cities, with their dense traffic and industrial activities, often have high air pollution levels, which is the root cause of various respiratory problems and other health issues. In contrast, rural areas have less traffic and fewer factories, resulting in cleaner air. For instance, a study conducted by the World Health Organization found that rural areas generally have lower levels of air pollutants as compared to urban areas.

Secondly, countryside life is more relaxed and less stressful. Urban living, however, is associated with fast-paced, high-stress levels because of work pressure, noise pollution and overcrowding. Chronic stress is known to contribute to various health problems, including heart disease and mental health disorders. In contrast, the slower pace of life in rural areas leads to lower stress levels and better overall mental health.  

Lastly, rural areas provide more opportunities for physical activity and a healthy diet. Countryside often encourages people to do outdoor activities such as hiking, cycling and farming, which promotes physical fitness. Additionally, rural residents have better access to fresh, locally-grown food, which leads to a healthy diet. 

In conclusion, while cities may offer certain conveniences, the health benefits of living in the countryside are more significant. The cleaner environment, lower stress levels, and opportunities for a healthier lifestyle make rural living a better choice for overall health and well-being. 

Paraphrased Statement: The question of whether urban or rural living provides greater health benefits has persisted for a long time. 

Thesis Statement: While some people argue that city life provides better healthcare facilities and opportunities for physical activity, I disagree with this view.I believe that the countryside offers more substantial health benefits because of its cleaner environment, lower stress levels and opportunities for a healthy lifestyle. 

Body Paragraph 1-Topic Sentences: Firstly, the countryside is known for its clean air and low pollution level. 

Body Paragraph 1- Supporting Reasons and Explanations:  Cities, with their dense traffic and industrial activities, often have high air pollution levels, which is the root cause of various respiratory problems and other health issues. In contrast, rural areas have less traffic and fewer factories, resulting in cleaner air. For instance, a study conducted by the World Health Organization found that rural areas generally have lower levels of air pollutants as compared to urban areas.

Body Paragraph 2- Topic sentence: Secondly, countryside life is more relaxed and less stressful. Urban living, however, is associated with fast-paced, high-stress levels because of work pressure, noise pollution and overcrowding.

Body paragraph 2- Supporting Reasons and Explanations:    Chronic stress is known to contribute to various health problems, including heart disease and mental health disorders. In contrast, the slower pace of life in rural areas leads to lower stress levels and better overall mental health.  Lastly, rural areas provide more opportunities for physical activity and a healthy diet. Countryside often encourages people to do outdoor activities such as hiking, cycling and farming, which promotes physical fitness. Additionally, rural residents have better access to fresh, locally-grown food, which leads to a healthy diet. 

Body Paragraph 3- Topic sentence: Lastly, rural areas provide more opportunities for physical activity and a healthy diet. 

Body paragraph 3- Supporting Reasons and Explanations: Countryside often encourages people to do outdoor activities such as hiking, cycling and farming, which promotes physical fitness. Additionally, rural residents have better access to fresh, locally-grown food, which leads to a healthy diet.

Conclusion: In conclusion, while cities may offer certain conveniences, the health benefits of living in the countryside are more significant. The cleaner environment, lower stress levels, and opportunities for a healthier lifestyle make rural living a better choice for overall health and well-being. 

Vocabulary in Use

Linkers and Connectors Used

Following are the linkers and connectors used:

•   Firstly
• In contrast
• For instance
• Additionally
• In conclusion

Are you preparing for IELTS? Check out this video to improve your writing skills for the IELTS exam given below👇.

Download the Leverage IELTS App today.

Need help preparing for IELTS? Check out the best  IELTS preparation courses  in the market offered in a live training environment.

Purti Chawla

Purti is a CELTA, British Council, and IDP-certified language trainer. Having worked as a Study Abroad Test Prep Expert for the past 7 years, she has guided thousands of students towards their desirable scores in IELTS, TOEFL, GRE, GMAT and other language proficiency tests to study abroad. She is adept in molding learning strategies according to the needs of the learners and has built multiple courses at Leverage IELTS with result-oriented strategies. Proficient in test prep courses such as IELTS, TOEFL, PTE, and Duolingo, she loves to explore different classroom teaching methods, keeps continuously improving her own skills, and stays abreast with the latest teaching methodologies. She is a master trainer at Leverage Edu and aims to help thousands more through her expertise.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

The official IELTS by IDP app is here! Download it today.

IELTS Academic

IELTS Academic assesses how well you can use English in an academic environment.

IELTS General training

Students applying to high schools or vocational training programs in English-speaking countries might need to take this test.

If you would like to study at undergraduate or postgraduate level in the UK, you can take IELTS UKVI.

• IELTS One Skill Retake

Didn't get the band score you require? Check to see if you're eligible for a One Skill Retake.

English self-assessment tool

Check your language level and get personalised suggestions on how to improve your English and prepare for IELTS.

Get your results

Check your provisional IELTS results online and do more.

IELTS Community

Join the IELTS community and meet with other IELTS test takers from all over the world!

Had a great and memorable experience with IELTS - IFI. The staffs are supportive and very accommodating. Venue is stellar and conducive for testing. Not to mention, the online review is comprehensive and mock exam is absolutely helpful.

Gabriel Yumul

Các dạng bài & cách viết ielts writing task 1, các dạng writing task 2 thường gặp và định hướng làm bài, ielts speaking part 1: các chủ đề thường gặp và bí quyết trả lời, tổng hợp bộ từ vựng ielts writing task 1, từ vựng ielts theo chủ đề phổ biến, bảng quy đổi điểm toeic sang ielts chi tiết nhất, cách viết ielts writing task 1 dạng line graph, cách viết writing task 1 dạng bar chart chỉ với 3 bước cực hiệu quả, cách viết writing task 1 dạng map đạt điểm cao, hướng dẫn viết dạng bài writing task 1 process/diagram chi tiết.

• Simplified Chinese

Cause and Effect essay: Cấu trúc, Từ vựng và Bài mẫu

Nắm rõ cách viết Cause and Effect essay là một kỹ năng quan trọng mà bạn không nên bỏ qua. Cùng IDP tìm hiểu cấu trúc và cách viết dạng bài này nhé.

Chủ đề bài viết

Trong quá trình học tiếng Anh, bạn sẽ dần được làm quen với việc lập dàn ý và triển khai viết một bài luận (Essay). Các bạn có thể áp dụng nhiều chiến lược viết bài cho từng dạng bài khác nhau, và một trong những dạng bài truyền tải đầy đủ và chính xác mọi thông tin đến người đọc là Cause and Effect essay , hay còn gọi là bài luận về nguyên nhân và kết quả. 

Nắm rõ cách viết một bài luận Nguyên nhân - Kết quả là một kỹ năng quan trọng mà hầu hết sinh viên ở mọi lĩnh thuật học thuật cần phải biết, đặc biệt là những bạn đang chuẩn bị cho kỳ thi IELTS sắp tới. Bài viết này sẽ giúp bạn tìm hiểu về cấu trúc cơ bản, cách sắp xếp luận điểm cũng như bỏ túi nhiều ý tưởng qua những bài mẫu Cause and Effect essay nhé.

1. Cách nhận biết dạng bài Cause and Effect

Bài luận Cause and Effect essay là một dạng bài đòi hỏi người viết phải trình bày mối liên hệ giữa nguyên nhân và sự ảnh hưởng của một vấn đề. Tương tự như các bài luận khác, bài luận về nguyên nhân và kết quả cũng đóng vai trò cung cấp kiến thức cho người đọc. Tuy nhiên, bạn cần thể hiện được tư duy và cái nhìn khách quan, thể hiện được kỹ năng phân tích logic về một chủ đề và rút ra được những cách giải quyết của riêng mình. 

Một ví dụ của tình huống Cause and Effect 

Các yếu tố chính của dạng bài Cause and Effect essay:

Nguyên nhân (Cause): Đây là những yếu tố hoặc lý do xảy ra một tình huống cụ thể. 

Kết quả (Effect): Kết quả là những hậu quả hoặc hệ lụy do các nguyên nhân được xác định gây ra.

Mối liên hệ giữa Cause và Effect: Trọng tâm chính của bài luận dạng này luôn nằm ở việc chứng minh mối liên kết giữa nguyên nhân và kết quả. Không chỉ đơn giản là liệt kê các luận điểm, bạn còn phải giải thích một cách logic và mạch lạc tại sao những yếu tố này lại dẫn đến các kết quả như vậy. 

Những Cause and Effect essay topics phổ biến trong IELTS Writing Task 2

It is seen that older adults are not given enough respect and facilities in many countries. What could be the reason for this? What are the effects of this?

The percentage of overweight children in Western society has increased by almost 20% in the last 10 years. Discuss the causes and effects of this disturbing trend.

Childhood obesity is becoming a serious problem in many countries. Explain the main causes and effects of this problem, and suggest some possible solutions.

2. Cấu trúc dạng bài Cause and Effect essay

Có rất nhiều phương pháp giúp bạn lập một dàn ý hoàn chỉnh, tuy nhiên, hãy luôn xây dựng một bố cục rõ ràng, có tính liên kết vững chắc giữa các ý tưởng. Một dàn ý tốt sẽ giúp bạn duy trì được mạch thông tin logic và truyền tải hiệu quả mối quan hệ nhân quả giữa các luận điểm.

Dưới đây là một cấu trúc dạng bài Cause and Effect essay cơ bản: 

3. Cách viết Cause and Effect essay và lập dàn ý

Sau khi đã nắm rõ những kiến thức về cách lên ý tưởng và viết essay Cause and Effect, hãy cùng làm quen cách phân tích và lập dàn ý đối với đề bài sau: 

Today more people are overweight than ever before. What is your opinion are the primary causes of this? What are the main effects of this?

Đọc cẩn thận và phân tích đề bài:

Khi đi vào phân tích đề bài, hãy xác định xem đây là dạng bài gì, chủ đề trong bài như thế nào? Bạn cũng cần nắm rõ đề bài muốn nhấn mạnh vào nguyên nhân, kết quả ảnh hưởng hay cả hai khía cạnh. 

Đối với đề bài này, vấn đề đang được nhắc đến là “ a growing number of overweight people ” - số lượng những người mắc tình trạng béo phì đang gia tăng khá cao hiện nay. 

Lập dàn ý chi tiết:

Viết bài và chỉnh sửa những lỗi sai (nếu có)

Sau khi đã hoàn thành dàn ý trên, hãy viết thành một bài luận hoàn chỉnh. Đối với bước cuối cùng, đừng quên kiểm tra về lỗi lập luận, các cấu trúc ngữ pháp để đảm bảo bài viết được trình bày hoàn chỉnh nhất.

4. Từ vựng phổ biến trong dạng bài Cause and Effect essay

Đối với phần thi IELTS Writing 2 - Dạng bài Cause and Effect essay questions, bạn cần sử dụng thuần thục các từ nối (linking words) hoặc những cụm từ giúp chuyển tiếp về mặt ý nghĩa. Bên cạnh đó, hãy ghi nhớ các nhóm từ vựng giúp diễn tả thông tin theo từng chủ đề khác nhau. 

Các từ vựng và cụm từ chỉ nguyên nhân

Các từ vựng và cụm từ chỉ kết quả

Các cụm từ nối những luận điểm: 

To what extent does A cause B?: A ảnh hưởng đến B ở mức độ nào?

What are the main causes of ….?: Những nguyên nhân chính của …. là gì?

What are the short-term and long-term effects of ….?: Các tác động ngắn hạn và dài hạn là gì?

How can we reduce the negative effects of …?: Làm thế nào để giảm thiểu những tác động tiêu cực của .…?

5. Bài mẫu Cause and Effect essay

Đề bài: In many urban areas, the rise in air pollution is becoming a significant concern. What are the main causes of this increase, and what effects does it have on the environment and public health?

Bài làm mẫu:

The escalating levels of air pollution in urban environments have emerged as a pressing issue. This essay will explore the primary causes behind this surge and its repercussions on both the environment and public health.

One prominent cause of escalating air pollution is the exponential growth of vehicular traffic. The increasing number of automobiles, coupled with outdated emission standards , releases a significant volume of pollutants into the air. Additionally, industrial activities contribute to the problem, with factories emitting pollutants such as particulate matter and greenhouse gasses.

The effects on the environment are devastating . Air pollution accelerates climate change, leading to unpredictable weather patterns and ecological imbalances . Moreover, public health bears the brunt , as respiratory illnesses and cardiovascular diseases become more prevalent due to prolonged exposure to polluted air.

In conclusion, the surge in air pollution in urban areas is primarily attributable to vehicular emissions and industrial activities. The adverse effects on both the environment and public health necessitate urgent measures, such as the implementation of stricter emission standards and the promotion of sustainable transportation. Only through concerted efforts can we mitigate the impact of air pollution and safeguard the well-being of both the planet and its inhabitants.

Vocabulary ghi điểm: 

prominent cause: nguyên nhân quan trọng

exponential growth: tăng trưởng theo cấp số nhân

emission standards: tiêu chuẩn phát thải

significant volume: lượng lớn

devastating: tàn phá

accelerates: thúc đẩy

ecological imbalances: mất cân bằng sinh thái

bears the brunt (idiom): chịu đựng

respiratory illnesses: bệnh đường hô hấp (bệnh phổi)

cardiovascular diseases: bệnh tim mạch

prevalent: phổ biến, thịnh hành

Tự tin chinh phục dạng bài Cause and Effect essay khi ôn luyện cùng IDP!

Hiểu rõ về cấu trúc Cause and Effect essay cùng cách trình bày bài viết hoàn chỉnh sẽ giúp bạn khám phá ra những mối liên hệ mật thiết giữa các chủ đề khác nhau. Hy vọng với những thông tin trên, bạn có thể dễ dàng trình các luận điểm của mình một cách rõ ràng và có logic nhất.

Để có thể chinh phục điểm số cao khi gặp dạng bài này, đừng quên luyện tập thường xuyên với những tài liệu ôn tập miễn phí từ IEDP. Bạn cũng đừng quên tìm hiểu cách tính điểm IELTS Writing để nắm rõ những tiêu chí được giám khảo chú trọng đánh giá. Từ đó, bạn sẽ tập trung vào việc thể hiện bài viết hoàn chỉnh và ghi điểm cao hơn. 

Và khi bạn đã sẵn sàng, hãy đăng ký thi IELTS với IDP ngay

Về bài viết

Published on May 07, 2024

Quỳnh Khanh

Tôi là Quỳnh Khanh - Content Writer có hơn 5 năm về lĩnh vực giáo dục

Chia sẻ bài viết

[GIẢI ĐÁP] IELTS 6.0 là cao hay thấp và làm được gì?

Điểm IELTS 6.5 làm được gì, có dễ đạt được band điểm này không?

IELTS 5.5 là cao hay thấp? Cách đạt band 5.5 trong thời gian ngắn nhất

IELTS 9.0 - Band điểm mơ ước của hàng triệu thí sinh

PTE và IELTS, lựa chọn bài thi nào để định cư tại Canada?

Những điều cần biết về chứng chỉ IELTS 5.0 để xây dựng mục tiêu học tập phù hợp

TOEFL và IELTS: Bài thi nào dễ hơn?

7 thói quen hàng ngày giúp cải thiện tiếng Anh hiệu quả

IELTS 8.5 làm được gì? Lộ trình tự học IELTS 8.5 có khó không?

IELTS 8.0 có thể làm gì, có khó để đạt tới band điểm này?

• Hình thức thi IELTS
• Các tổ chức công nhận IELTS
• Tin tức và bài viết cập nhật
• Sự kiện IELTS
• Hình thức thi nào phù hợp với tôi?
• Chương trình ưu đãi IELTS
• Đối tác IDP IELTS tại Việt Nam
• Câu chuyện thành công
• IELTS - Tấm vé vàng để đi du học
• Liên hệ IDP IELTS
• Thi IELTS trên máy tính
• Thi IELTS trên giấy
• IELTS Học thuật
• IELTS Tổng quát
• IELTS UKVI Học thuật
• IELTS UKVI Tổng quát
• IELTS UKVI Life Skills
• Đăng ký thi IELTS
• Lịch thi IELTS
• Lệ phí thi IELTS
• Tìm địa điểm thi IELTS
• Câu hỏi thường gặp về IELTS
• Bài kiểm tra IELTS Familiarisation
• Ứng dụng IELTS by IDP
• IELTS Masterclass
• Tải các mẫu đơn
• Cam-pu-chia
• Cộng hòa Síp
• Netherlands
• New Caledonia
• New Zealand
• Papua New Guinea
• Philippines
• Ả Rập Xê Út
• Quần đảo Solomon
• Tây Ban Nha
• Quần đảo Ellice
• Các Tiểu Vương quốc Ả Rập Thống nhất
• Liên hệ với chúng tôi
• Thông báo pháp lý
• Chính sách quyền riêng tư
• Chính sách cookie
• Bản quyền 2024 IDP IELTS

What are the causes and effects of water pollution?

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Fully explain your ideas

To get an excellent score in the IELTS Task 2 writing section, one of the easiest and most effective tips is structuring your writing in the most solid format. A great argument essay structure may be divided to four paragraphs, in which comprises of four sentences (excluding the conclusion paragraph, which comprises of three sentences).

For we to consider an essay structure a great one, it should be looking like this:

• Paragraph 1 - Introduction
• Sentence 1 - Background statement
• Sentence 2 - Detailed background statement
• Sentence 3 - Thesis
• Sentence 4 - Outline sentence
• Paragraph 2 - First supporting paragraph
• Sentence 1 - Topic sentence
• Sentence 2 - Example
• Sentence 3 - Discussion
• Sentence 4 - Conclusion
• Paragraph 3 - Second supporting paragraph
• Paragraph 4 - Conclusion
• Sentence 1 - Summary
• Sentence 2 - Restatement of thesis
• Sentence 3 - Prediction or recommendation

Our recommended essay structure above comprises of fifteen (15) sentences, which will make your essay approximately 250 to 275 words.

Discover more tips in The Ultimate Guide to Get a Target Band Score of 7+ » — a book that's free for 🚀 Premium users.

• Check your IELTS essay »
• Find essays with the same topic
• View collections of IELTS Writing Samples
• Show IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics

Some people think the government should pay for health care and education, but there is no agreement about whether it is the government’s responsibility. What is your opinion?

Governments give lots of support to artists, even though some people think​ ​it is a waste of money that could have been spent better elsewhere. discuss both views and give your opinion, some people think that good health is a basic human need, so the medical service should not be run by profit-making companies. do you think the disadvantages of private health care outweigh the advantages, some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal, he will always be a criminal. do you agree with this statement provide specific reasons and examples to support your opinion., some people prefer to buy food in a supermarket, others prefer to do their food shopping online. discuss both views and give your opinion..

Supreme Court Imperils an Array of Federal Rules

A foundational 1984 decision required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes, underpinning regulations on health care, safety and the environment.

• Share full article

Adam Liptak

Reporting on the Supreme Court since 2008

The decision is the latest upending longstanding precedents.

The Supreme Court swept aside a longstanding legal precedent on Friday, reducing the power of executive agencies and endangering countless regulations by transferring power from the executive branch to Congress and the courts. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said that “agencies have no special competence” and that judges should determine the meaning of federal laws.

The precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council , is one of the most cited in American law, underpinning 70 Supreme Court decisions and roughly 17,000 in the lower courts. Critics of regulatory authority immediately hailed the decision, suggesting it could open new avenues to challenge federal rules in areas ranging from abortion pills to the environment.

The court has now overturned major precedents in each of the last three terms: on abortion in 2022, on affirmative action in 2023 and now on the power of administrative agencies. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said the ruling amounted to the Supreme Court’s latest judicial power grab. “A rule of judicial humility,” she wrote, “gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.”

Here’s what else to know:

What is Chevron deference? It is the principle from the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling that gave regulatory agencies leeway to interpret laws that Congress had left vague. When Congress passes a law, it cannot anticipate all the ways that the economy, the nation and the world will change. If regulators had only the powers that Congress explicitly gave them, many regulations would be vulnerable to legal challenges. The ruling could have broad implications for the regulation of food and drugs , the banking and financial sector , taxation , as well as conservative activists’ targeting of medication abortion and rights for transgender people .

A major goal of the conservative legal movement: Friday’s ruling undoes a precedent that empowered executive branch agencies, which many conservatives have come to believe are dominated by liberals under both parties’ administrations — a critique often described as “the deep state.” Elizabeth Murrill, the Republican attorney general of Louisiana who has taken a leading role in lawsuits against the Biden administration’s environmental regulations, said Chevron deference had been “wildly abused by this administration more than any other.” Read about conservatives’ view of the precedent.

The White House reaction: Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said Friday’s decision was the latest example of the Supreme Court siding with Republican-backed special interests to block “common-sense rules that keep us safe, protect our health and environment, safeguard our financial system, and support American consumers and workers.”

Supporters of regulatory oversight criticized the decision: Critics of the decision said it would empower the courts, not Congress, to dictate policy. “Getting rid of Chevron deference says, you know what? The courts will be the decider of how to interpret these laws instead of experts who are knowledgeable in the field,” said Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, who sits on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The case started with fishermen: The court heard two almost identical cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. Both cases involved a 1976 federal law that requires herring boats to carry federal observers to collect data used to prevent overfishing.

Under a 2020 regulation interpreting the law, owners of the boats were required not only to transport the observers but also to pay $700 a day for their oversight. Fishermen in New Jersey and Rhode Island — backed by two conservative organizations that decry the “administrative state” — sued, saying the 1976 law did not authorize the relevant agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, to impose the fee.

Charlie Savage

The decision is the latest blow to regulatory agencies.

Overturning the Chevron deference precedent is just the latest in a series of ringing blows the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed conservative bloc has delivered to the ability of regulatory agencies to impose rules on powerful business interests, advancing a longstanding goal of the conservative legal movement and the donors who have funded its rise .

Just yesterday, the majority struck down the ability of agencies to enforce their rules via in-house tribunals before technical-expert administrative judges. Instead, it ruled, agencies must sue accused malefactors in federal court before juries.

In recent years, the Republican majority has also made it easier to sue agencies and get their rules struck down, including by advancing the so-called major questions doctrine. Under that idea, courts should nullify economically significant regulations if judges decided Congress was not clear enough in authorizing them.

Advancing and entrenching that idea, the court has struck down an E.P.A. rule aimed at limiting carbon pollution from power plants , and barred the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from telling large employers they must either have their workers vaccinated against the Covid-19 virus or have them undergo frequent testing.

And in a 2020 ruling , the five Republican appointees then on the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the law Congress enacted to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that had protected its head from being fired by a president without a good cause, like misconduct.

Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said Friday’s decision was the latest example of the Supreme Court blocking “common-sense rules that keep us safe, protect our health and environment, safeguard our financial system, and support American consumers and workers.”

The court has not always gone as far as libertarians wanted, however. Earlier this term, the court rejected a challenge to the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded. Striking it down would have opened the door to lawsuits to nullify every regulation and enforcement action it has taken in its 13 years of existence, including ones concerning mortgages, credit cards, consumer loans and banking.

While overturning Chevron is now the capstone victory for the conservative legal movement’s assault on the administrative state, it may not be the end of the story. More extreme opponents of regulation hope the court will someday embrace a sweeping version of the so-called nondelegation doctrine.

Under that vision, the Constitution does not allow Congress to delegate any of its legislative authority to executive branch agencies. If so, all regulations should be struck down because the only way society can impose a legally binding rule on business interests is if Congress manages to specifically enact one via statute.

Read the Court’s Decision to Overrule the Chevron Doctrine

The ruling sweeps aside a legal precedent that required courts to defer to the expertise of federal administrators in carrying out laws passed by Congress.

Advertisement

Deborah B. Solomon

Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, called the Supreme Court’s ruling “another deeply troubling decision that takes our country backwards” and the latest decision by the court to side with Republican-backed special interests and block commonsense rules on health, the enviroment and worker protection.

She said in a statement that President Biden had directed his legal team to work with the Justice Department and other lawyers “to review today’s decision carefully and ensure that our administration is doing everything we can to continue to deploy the extraordinary expertise of the federal workforce to keep Americans safe and ensure communities thrive and prosper.”

Coral Davenport

The Chevron decision is the latest major blow in a yearslong coordinated strategy to weaken the authority of what conservative activists call the “administrative state.” One big step came two years ago, with the Supreme Court decision in West Virginia vs. E.P.A., sharply curtailing the agency’s authority to regulate climate-warming pollution from power plants. That ruling essentially told regulators to stay in their lane and not attempt broader interpretations of the law.

The Chevron decision advances that precedent, essentially applying it to all regulations, large and small. Together, experts say that the two rulings could mean that more government regulations are struck down or scaled back by the courts, and that government agencies could be more timid or restrained in writing new rules.

Christina Jewett

Utah geared up for a fight in anticipation of the court’s ruling.

The possibility of new limits on the regulatory power of the federal government had already spurred one state to identify regulations ripe for a challenge.

A law passed in Utah directs agriculture and environmental agencies to identify federal rules carried out in the state that might be vulnerable under a ruling that limits the Chevron precedent. The analyses are due at the start of 2025 and the law says the state attorney general will issue his own report by midyear to declare his plans for possible lawsuits.

Sean D. Reyes, the Utah attorney general, has made well known his distaste for the Chevron precedent, which gives federal agencies leeway to interpret laws that Congress left vague. In a news release, he called the standard “one of the greatest threats to individual liberty.”

“For far too long, it has been wielded by big government proponents, unaccountable federal bureaucrats, and activist courts to destroy the freedoms of hard-working Americans and rob local control from our states,” he said in a statement in August.

Mr. Reyes signed on with about two dozen other Republican attorneys general to a friend-of-the-court brief decrying the onus on small businesses, the vast costs and the volume of regulations, which they said vastly outpace the number of laws passed by Congress, though that has been on a downward trend for decades.

Utah is not entirely alone in its war room crouch, said Gary Feldon, an attorney with Hollingsworth who noted Utah’s work in a recent article anticipating the ruling.

“I don’t know that anybody is doing it quite as systemically as the state of Utah seems to be, but industry and businesses are certainly aware that we are on the edge of a major shift,” Mr. Feldon said. “And the savvy among them are making sure that they’re in position to take advantage of it now.”

In addition to cutting back on the power of executive agencies, the Supreme Court on Friday issued decisions in two other closely watched cases: upholding a city’s laws aimed at banning homeless residents from sleeping outdoors and ruling that federal prosecutors had overstepped in using an obstruction law to prosecute a Jan. 6 rioter .

Teddy Rosenbluth and Roni Caryn Rabin

The ruling is likely to stymie public health initiatives, experts said.

The Supreme Court decision overturning the so-called Chevron doctrine is likely to hamstring the federal government’s public health efforts and invite waves of litigation from parties opposed to regulations aimed at safeguarding Americans, scientific and legal experts said.

By gutting federal agencies’ power to interpret ambiguous laws and fill in gaps in statutes, forcing them instead to defer to protracted judicial or legislative processes, the ruling also could prevent regulators from acting quickly and creatively in the face of a catastrophic emergency, such as climate change or another deadly pandemic.

“We anticipate that today’s ruling will cause significant disruption to publicly funded health insurance programs, to the stability of this country’s health care and food and drug review systems, and to the health and well-being of the patients and consumers we serve,” several of the nation’s largest health organizations, including the American Public Health Association and the American Cancer Society, said in a joint statement on Friday.

Federal officials will feel a “chilling effect” that will slow regulations in areas in which they do not have explicit authority, said Dr. Reshma Ramachandran, co-director of the Yale Collaboration for Regulatory Rigor, Integrity and Transparency, an initiative that studies medical product evaluations and coverage in order to improve patient outcomes.

Instead of hiring more scientific and technological experts, federal agencies will have to arm themselves with lawyers, she predicted.

Zachary L. Baron, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at the O’Neill Institute at Georgetown Law in Washington, said one result of the ruling “is likely to be an increase in litigation and an increase in uncertainty.”

“It seems like, as Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent, the court is flipping the script today, giving more authority to courts and judges and less authority to federal agencies and the expertise that they have,” Mr. Baron said.

Today’s ruling is one in a string of court decisions in recent years in which the court has given itself “more and more power over every significant policy dispute, and closing the door on agency experts that have been working on these issues for years,” he said.

Indeed, Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent offered an example of the type of detailed scientific question judges may now face in court: When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as a protein?

“I don’t know many judges who would feel confident resolving that issue,” she wrote. “(First question: What even is an alpha amino acid polymer?)”

The Food and Drug Administration, she added, has scores of experts who could “collaborate with each other on its finer points, and arrive at a sensible answer.”

The Chevron doctrine has its roots in public health: a 1984 Supreme Court case involving air pollution. At issue was the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous provision in the Clean Air Act that affected companies subject to pollution controls.

The court determined that federal agencies should receive “deference” for reasonable interpretations of gaps or ambiguities in the statutes that Congress could not have anticipated when it crafted the laws.

The court gave federal agencies leeway because of their subject matter and scientific expertise, experience and political accountability.

Now that this authority has been curtailed, public health agencies simply may regulate less, a goal long sought by proponents of a smaller federal government and companies eager to pursue unfettered growth.

“If agencies know that everything they do that is not perfectly aligned with a statute will be scrutinized by the court, they will be less likely to promulgate expansive rules or swift rules,” said Selina Coleman, a health care partner at Reed Smith, a large law firm.

Other experts also predicted an explosion in litigation and uncertainty. The ruling will “signal to industry and aggressive state attorneys general to open the floodgates to more litigation to block federal regulatory efforts,” Mr. Baron said.

Moving public health decisions from federal agencies to Congress and the courts will lead to “incoherence, chaos and endless litigation,” said Paul Billings, national senior vice president of public policy at the American Lung Association.

The Supreme Court and lower courts have already chipped away at the authority of regulatory bodies to make public health decisions. Many such rulings were handed down during the coronavirus pandemic.

In November 2021, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction that barred the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from enforcing a national moratorium on evictions from rental housing, despite fears that a wave of such displacements would exacerbate the spread of Covid-19.

In January 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration could not require large businesses to vaccinate their employees against Covid. In April 2022, a federal judge in Florida struck down a C.D.C. mandate that required passengers to wear masks on public buses, trains and planes.

Today’s Supreme Court decision will task Congress with spelling out exactly what agencies like the C.D.C. can and cannot do, several observers said. “Nobody has any confidence that Congress can get its act together to do that,” said Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association.

“I think the decision as written solidifies employment for lawyers and judges, and undermines the authority of experts,” he added.

Other scientists also expressed doubt that Congress or the judiciary could remain abreast of constantly evolving scientific evidence. “To keep up with that pace of change, even for a medical or scientific professional, is very challenging,” said Karen Knudsen, chief executive of the American Cancer Society.

Consumer advocates are calling the decision a travesty that could upend the rules and regulations Americans depend upon for their safety.

“It’s going to affect everything from airbags in peoples’ cars to the quality of the food they feed their families and the water they drink,” said Stephen Hall, legal director of Better Markets, which pushes for tougher regulation. “This decision threatens to return the United States to the 1910s when the government had very limited ability to protect the health, safety, and welfare of America.”

Alan Rappeport

The ruling could undermine the Treasury Department and the I.R.S.

The Supreme Court’s knockdown of Chevron deference could complicate the ability of the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service to craft federal regulations that are central to President Biden’s economic agenda.

The Treasury Department is responsible for implementing major pieces of legislation such as the Inflation Reduction Act, including determining who qualifies for billions of dollars worth of tax credits. At the same time, the I.R.S. has vast leeway to administer the tax code. The agency has faced criticism recently for its decision to halt some pandemic relief tax credits to businesses because of concerns about fraud and delaying collection of new taxes on digital wallet transactions.

“Taxpayers are likely to challenge the validity of dozens of tax regulations and those challenges are much more likely to prevail,” said Robert J. Kovacev, a lawyer at the firm Miller & Chevalier who specializes in tax litigation and represents businesses engaged in disputes with the tax agency. “For years the I.R.S. has issued regulations expanding its power and restricting tax benefits that Congress intended taxpayers to receive.”

The ruling will also present new challenges as the Biden administration rolls out its alternative energy credit regulations, Mr. Kovacev said, because the I.R.S. will not be able to take for granted that courts will defer to its regulations.

The Tax Policy Center said in an analysis last fall that such a Supreme Court decision would make it harder for an agency such as the I.R.S. to write rules to address industries that are quickly evolving, such as cryptocurrencies, and that it would be more difficult to fill in the gaps for Congress when lawmakers rush to write tax legislation.

Critics of the tax agency said on Friday expressed optimism the ruling would limit its powers.

“Today’s decision will level the playing field for taxpayers and government agencies,” said Joe Bishop-Henchman, executive vice president at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. “Unreasonable I.R.S. interpretations will no longer automatically win in court, which is as it should be, and reasonable interpretations will still have the force of law.”

Treasury Department and the I.R.S. did not immediately have a comment.

Former top Trump officials are gloating about the overturning of the Chevron doctrine. Mandy Gunasekara, who served as chief of staff at the E.P.A. during the Trump administration and has helped write Project 2025 , a policy blueprint for a next Republican administration, wrote on the social media site X, that the era of “trust the experts” had ended. She called it a “great day for our constitutional integrity and the American people.”

Chris Cameron

House Republican leadership praised the Supreme Court ending the Chevron doctrine. “House Republican committees will be conducting oversight to ensure agencies follow the Court’s ruling,” Speaker Mike Johnson wrote in a joint statement with Representatives Steve Scalise and Tom Emmer.

Elizabeth Dias

Conservative Christian activists see Chevron as major win to push their causes.

Conservative Christian activists and lawyers are celebrating the Chevron decision as a significant win for their ambitions to target medication abortion and rights for transgender people.

Anti-abortion activists see the ruling as a critical tool to fight the Food and Drug Administration, especially after the court rejected their bid to undo the F.D.A.’s approval of a medication abortion drug earlier in June. “Getting rid of Chevron is the first domino to fall,” Kristi Hamrick, a strategist for Students for Life, said in a statement.

They see the decision as a new precedent as they seek to bring a future case against the F.D.A. to the Supreme Court. Ms. Hamrick said such a case was likely to get a better reception “when the F.D.A. is no longer given the benefit of the doubt.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian legal advocacy group that argued against the F.D.A.’s approval of the abortion pill and lost, also praised the ruling.

Federal agencies “frequently disrespect Americans’ most cherished principles — including religious freedom and the sanctity of life,” said Julie Marie Blake, senior counsel at A.D.F. “Now, the court has wiped away a major roadblock that prevented Americans from holding government officials accountable.”

A.D.F. had filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of Christian Employers Alliance, a group that defends freedoms for Christian businesses. The brief criticized a range of federal agencies, including the Department of Education and Health and Human Services, for what it said was the agencies’ efforts on “ending women’s sports” to imposing “radical gender ideology” to “forcing employers to pay for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and amputating healthy organs.”

Now, the brief’s argument looks like a road map for what lawyers may want to pursue with Chevron gone.

Business groups are cheering the Chevron decision. The National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small businesses, said the Supreme Court’s ruling will allow companies “to breathe a sigh of relief.”

“For 40 years, Chevron deference has allowed administrative agencies to enact regulations with little accountability,” Beth Milito, Executive Director of NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center, said in a statement. “Abandoning Chevron will hold agencies accountable and level the playing field in court cases between small businesses and administrative agencies.”

Democrats, anticipating Chevron’s demise, gave E.P.A. more power in recent climate law.

The Biden administration has been preparing for the overturn of Chevron, knowing that conservative activists have pushed cases like this, and that the majority of justices on the Supreme Court were expected to look favorably on it.

That’s why two years ago the White House worked with congressional Democrats to squeeze through legislation that could help protect the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to craft climate change regulations, even if the Chevron doctrine was struck down.

Climate change rules could be particularly vulnerable to legal attack in a post- Chevron world. That’s because the E.P.A. wrote them under the authority of the 1970 Clean Air Act, a sweeping law that directs the agency to regulate all pollutants that endanger human health.

But the legislators of 1970 did not specify anywhere in the law that carbon dioxide emissions, the chief cause of climate change, should be regulated. It doesn’t even mention climate change.

Democrats changed that in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, a law chiefly focused on spending billions of dollars on clean energy technology to fight climate change. But the law amends the Clean Air Act to define the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels as an “air pollutant.”

That language, according to legal experts as well as the Democrats who worked it into the legislation, explicitly gives the E.P.A. the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and to use its power to push the adoption of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.

The specificity of that legal language should protect E.P.A.’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide pollution by limiting their emission from tailpipes and smokestacks.

However, opponents of the rule — chiefly, the fossil fuel industry — are still expected to use the demise of the Chevron doctrine to attempt to weaken the specifics of those rules.

Overturning Chevron is just the latest in a series of ringing blows the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed conservative bloc has delivered to the ability of regulatory agencies to impose rules on powerful business interests, advancing a long-standing goal of the conservative legal movement and the donors who have funded its rise . Here are some previous steps:

In recent years, the Republican majority has also made it easier to sue agencies and get their rules struck down, including by advancing the so-called major questions doctrine. Under that idea, courts should nullify economically significant regulations if judges decided Congress was not clear enough in authorizing them. Advancing and entrenching that idea, the court has struck down an E.P.A. rule aimed at limiting carbon pollution from power plants , and barred the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from telling large employers they must either have their workers vaccinated against the Covid-19 virus or have them undergo frequent testing.

Overturning the Chevron decision has been a major goal of the conservative legal movement.

After taking aim at abortion and affirmative action, the conservative legal movement set its sights on a third precedent: Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council .

The 1984 decision, one of the most cited in American law but largely unknown to the public, bolstered the power of executive agencies that regulate the environment, the marketplace, the work force, the airwaves and countless other aspects of modern life. Overturning it was a key goal of the right and is part of a project to demolish the “administrative state.”

The decision rejecting Chevron threatens regulations covering — just for starters — health care, consumer safety, government benefit programs and climate change.

Chevron — and bear with me here, this will hurt only for a minute — established the principle that courts must defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The theory is that agencies have more expertise than judges, are more accountable to voters and are better able to establish uniform national policies.

“Judges are not experts in the field, and are not part of either political branch of the government,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 1984 for a unanimous court (though three of its justices recused for reasons of health or financial conflict). Justice Stevens later said of the opinion , which was easily his most influential, that it was “simply a restatement of existing law.”

The decision was not much noted when it was issued. “If Chevron amounted to a revolution, it seems almost everyone missed it,” Justice Neil Gorsuch, the harshest critic of the doctrine on the current court, wrote in 2022 , saying that courts had read it too broadly.

At first, conservatives believed that empowering agencies would constrain liberal judges. So the Reagan administration, which had interpreted the Clean Air Act to allow looser regulations of emissions, celebrated the decision.

Justice Stevens, rejecting a challenge from environmental groups, wrote that the Environmental Protection Agency’s reading of the statute was “a reasonable construction” that was “entitled to deference.”

The head of the E.P.A. when the regulation was issued? Anne Gorsuch, Justice Gorsuch’s mother.

Most surprisingly, given its current bad odor with the right, Chevron was at least initially championed, celebrated and elevated by Justice Antonin Scalia, a revered conservative figure who died in 2016 . “In the long run Chevron will endure and be given its full scope,” he wrote in a law review article in 1989, adding that this was so “because it more accurately reflects the reality of government.”

What, then, accounted for the decision’s place on the conservative hit list? After all, as the case itself demonstrates, it requires deference to agency interpretations under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

The answers are practical, cultural and philosophical. Business groups on the whole remain hostile to regulation. Many conservatives have come to believe that executive agencies are dominated by liberals under both parties’ administrations — the shorthand for this critique is “the deep state.” And some on the right have become hostile to the very idea of expertise.

The majority opinion by Justice Roberts notes: “Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.” Justice Elana Kagan, in a fiery dissent, disagreed and predicted “large-scale disruption,” as judges are called upon to answer questions that expert agencies have been entrusted to handle.

Ken Bensinger

Conservative pundits, already celebrating last night’s debate, are now in a mood of downright jubilation after the Supreme Court’s rulings today rolling back the power of regulatory agencies and overturning the Justice Department’s use of an obstruction statute in the January 6 criminal cases. “Huge, huge 24 hours for Donald Trump/GOP WOW,” wrote Megyn Kelly, the right-wing podcaster and former Fox anchor.

Stacy Cowley and Emily Flitter

The ruling will embolden challenges against financial regulators.

The end of Chevron deference is a boon for banking lobbyists, who have in recent years intensified their pushback against the agencies that oversee them — especially the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, one of the industry’s most aggressive regulators.

The consumer bureau’s interpretations “may now be subject to heightened attack and may require far more justification than formerly was the case,” said Joseph Lynyak, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney who specializes in financial regulation.

While the decision will complicate regulators’ jobs, its effects will likely seem familiar to them. Losing the Chevron deference will amplify a shift already underway in the lower courts, which have in recent years been receptive to lawsuits challenging financial regulators’ actions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in particular — and the federal courts under its purview — has been a major roadblock, preventing the bureau from imposing credit card late fee limits and expanding its interpretation of anti- discrimination laws .

One recent action that may now be ripe for a challenge is the bureau’s decision that Buy Now, Pay Later lenders are credit card providers, giving buyers a right to dispute charges and demand refunds.

“Because this interpretive rule pushes the envelope past existing law into pure agency interpretation, it will be an attractive target for industry challenge,” said Erin Bryan, another partner at Dorsey & Whitney.

In addition to the C.F.P.B., trade groups representing banks have sued other federal bank regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve. They have challenged those regulators over a host of rules, from a sweeping anti-redlining regulation to one requiring banks to disclose detailed data about their small business loans.

Outside advocacy groups have also gotten into the habit of suing the regulators, though the bulk of their activity took place during the Trump administration, when proponents of stricter financial regulation felt that government officials were unlawfully loosening rules on banks and other firms. Their preferred appeals circuit was the Ninth; they often filed federal court cases in the Northern District of California, where they expected judges to treat their arguments favorably.

Both sides won rulings by judges who declined to defer to the regulators.

“A court can always avoid getting to the Chevron deference in the first place by saying that a statute is not ambiguous, and that’s what happens the vast majority of the time,” said Randy Benjenk, a partner at Covington & Burling who focuses on financial regulation.

“In practice it’s been rare for a judge to conclude that a statute is ambiguous and defer to an agency’s interpretation of law. Judges routinely reach their own interpretations that contradict the agencies. That’s true in courts nationwide, whether in Texas, California or anywhere else.”

The oversight of food, drugs and tobacco is expected to be a target.

The Food and Drug Administration, which oversees a vast swath of items people use every day, is expected to see an increase — perhaps an onslaught — of lawsuits following the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday.

“This is disastrous for public health. This is disastrous for the critical role of science-based regulatory agencies,” said Mitch Zeller, a former F.D.A. associate commissioner and tobacco division director. “Chevron has worked well for half a century and makes a lot of sense.”

Challenges could range from whether tainted spinach can be traced back to a farm to the very core of the F.D.A.’s decisions on whether drugs are safe and effective enough to be sold in the United States.

“F.D.A. has always been called the gold standard for product approval throughout the world,” said Perham Gorji, a partner at the law firm DLA Piper and former deputy chief counsel at the F.D.A. “Less deference to F.D.A. is going to obviously change what’s available in terms of products that are available here in the United States.”

The agency employs about 18,000 people, many of whom are doctors or have advanced degrees in biostatistics, chemistry and toxicology. Given the complexity of some scientific decisions the agency makes, attorneys who focus on the F.D.A. said initial challenges might focus on areas in which the F.D.A. exerts policy clout, including some that touch on drug pricing.

Chad Landmon, an attorney with Axinn who leads the F.D.A. practice group, predicted that early lawsuits could stem from a mix of problems companies face.

“I think companies are going to be much more aggressive and generally are going to be looking for opportunities to challenge the F.D.A.,” Mr. Landmon said.

Others expect a broad onslaught from tobacco companies regulated by the agency. “I would expect the tobacco industry to target every aspect of the F.D.A.’s regulatory infrastructure,” said Desmond Jensen of the Public Health Law Center. The agency decides which e-cigarettes are authorized for sale and can reject new cigarettes that could attract new smokers.

Limits on Chevron are widely thought to favor industry, but the reality could be more complex if advocacy groups gear up, said Nick Shipley, a former lobbyist for BIO and PhRMA and the founder of Cronus Consulting. He cited the group that challenged the F.D.A.’s approval of abortion medications .

“Industry,” he said, “could be caught in the crossfire.”

While the Chevron decision could imperil the standing of hundreds of recent and future regulations, Chief Justice Roberts was careful to write in his opinion that the decision is not retroactive.

Justice Roberts wrote that it does “not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful — including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself — are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology.”

Coral Davenport ,  Christina Jewett ,  Alan Rappeport ,  Margot Sanger-Katz ,  Noam Scheiber and Noah Weiland

Here’s what the Chevron ruling could mean in everyday terms.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to limit the broad regulatory authority of federal agencies could lead to the elimination or weakening of thousands of rules on the environment, health care, worker protection, food and drug safety, telecommunications, the financial sector and more.

The decision is a major victory in a decades-long campaign by conservative activists to shrink the power of the federal government, limiting the reach and authority of what those activists call “the administrative state.”

The court’s opinion could make it easier for opponents of federal regulations to challenge them in court, prompting a rush of new litigation, while also injecting uncertainty into businesses and industries.

“If Americans are worried about their drinking water, their health, their retirement account, discrimination on the job, if they fly on a plane, drive a car, if they go outside and breathe the air — all of these day-to-day activities are run through a massive universe of federal agency regulations,” said Lisa Heinzerling, an expert in administrative law at Georgetown University. “And this decision now means that more of those regulations could be struck down by the courts.”

The decision effectively ends a legal precedent known as “Chevron deference,” after a 1984 Supreme Court ruling. That decision held that when Congress passes a law that lacks specificity, courts must give wide leeway to decisions made by the federal agencies charged with implementing that law. The theory was that scientists, economists and other specialists at the agencies have more expertise than judges in determining regulations and that the executive branch is also more accountable to voters.

Since then, thousands of legal decisions have relied on the Chevron doctrine when challenges have been made to regulations stemming from laws like the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, the 1970 Clean Air Act , the 2010 Affordable Care Act and others.

In writing laws, Congress has frequently used open-ended directives, such as “ensuring the rule is in the public interest,” leaving it to agency experts to write rules to limit toxic smog, ensure that health plans cover basic medical services, ensure the safety of drugs and cosmetics and protect consumers from risky corporate financial behavior.

But that gave too much power to unelected government officials, according to conservatives, who ran a coordinated, multiyear campaign to end the Chevron doctrine. They believe the courts, not administrative agencies, should have the power to interpret statutes. The effort was led by Republican attorneys general, conservative legal activists and their funders, several with ties to large corporations, and supporters of former President Donald J. Trump.

“Overturning Chevron was a shared goal of the conservative movement and the Trump administration. It was expressed constantly,” said Mandy Gunasekara, who served as chief of staff at the E.P.A. under President Trump and has helped write Project 2025 , a policy blueprint for a next Republican administration. “It creates a massive opportunity for these regulations to be challenged. And it could galvanize additional momentum toward reining in the administrative state writ large if the administration changes in November.”

Still, Jonathan Berry, who served as a senior Labor Department official under Mr. Trump, noted that overturning the Chevron doctrine itself “doesn’t immediately blow anything up.”

Rather, Mr. Berry said, the fate of the regulations will be determined by what happens when they start moving through the courts without the protection of Chevron. “The mystery is exactly how much of this stuff goes down,” Mr. Berry said.

Here is a look at how the decision might affect various government agencies.

The Environmental Protection Agency

Environmentalists fear that the end of the Chevron doctrine will mean the elimination of hundreds of E.P.A. rules aimed at limiting air and water pollution, protecting people from toxic chemicals and, especially, tackling climate change.

Over the past six months, the Biden administration has issued the most ambitious rules in the country’s history aimed at cutting climate-warming pollution from cars , trucks , power plants and oil and gas wells . Without those rules, it would very likely be impossible for President Biden to achieve his goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the decade, which analysts say all major economies must do to avoid the most deadly and catastrophic impacts of global warming.

All of the Biden climate rules have already been the target of lawsuits that are winding their way through the courts.

Legal experts say that the reversal of Chevron will not remove E.P.A.’s foundational legal obligation to regulate climate-warming pollution: that was explicitly detailed in a 2007 Supreme Court decision and in 2022 legislation passed by Democrats in anticipation of challenges to that authority.

But the specific regulations — such those designed to cut car and truck pollution by accelerating the transition to electric vehicles, or to slash power plant pollution with the use of costly carbon capture and sequestration technology — could now be more legally vulnerable.

The result would quite likely be that stringent climate rules designed to sharply reduce emissions could be replaced by much looser rules that cut far less pollution. Experts say that could also be the fate of existing rules on smog, clean water and hazardous chemicals.

Labor Agencies

The elimination of the Chevron deference could affect workers in a variety of ways, making it harder for the government to enact workplace safety regulations and enforce minimum wage and overtime rules.

One recent example was in April, when the Biden administration raised the salary level below which salaried workers automatically become eligible for time-and-a-half overtime pay, to nearly $59,000 per year from about $35,000, beginning on Jan. 1. Business groups have challenged the Labor Department’s authority to set a so-called salary threshold and such challenges will have far better odds of success without the Chevron precedent, experts said.

The shift could also rein in protections for workers who publicly challenge the policies of their employers, according to Charlotte Garden, a professor of labor law at the University of Minnesota. The National Labor Relations Board often concludes that a single worker has the right to protest low pay or harassment or attendance policies without being disciplined or fired. But the relevant law refers to “concerted activities,” meaning the protection may now apply only to groups of employees who stage such protests, not individuals, Professor Garden said.

Food and Drug Administration

The Food and Drug Administration flexes significant power when it sets the standards for how new drugs must be studied and whether they are safe and effective before they are approved for use. Attorneys who worked at the agency said that companies chafing at that high bar for approvals might now challenge those regulations. Others said legal challenges could ultimately affect drug prices.

Challenges are also expected in the agency’s tobacco division, which authorizes the sale of new cigarettes and e-cigarettes with the intent to protect public health. “I would expect the industry to attack the F.D.A.’s authority to do premarket review at all,” said Desmond Jenson, deputy director of the commercial tobacco control program at the Public Health Law Center.

Others noted the Chevron decision could have a chilling effect, compelling the F.D.A. to proceed quite carefully, given the potential for litigation, if it moves forward with proposals to ban menthol cigarettes or make them less addictive by slashing nicotine levels.

Abortion opponents say the ruling could work in their favor as they seek to bring another case against the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of an abortion medication to the Supreme Court, which rejected their effort to undo the agency’s approval of the drug this month.

Kristi Hamrick, a strategist for Students for Life of America, an anti-abortion organization, said in a statement that such a case was likely to get a better reception “when the F.D.A. is no longer given the benefit of the doubt.”

Health Care

The court’s ruling could affect how Medicare, Medicaid and Affordable Care Act insurance plans are administered, health law experts said, as opponents gain an opportunity to challenge how these huge programs operate.

The health care system is governed by elaborate regulations covering how hospitals operate, what providers are paid for medical services and how insurance companies are monitored by the government. Much of that regulation is grounded in interpretation of laws that date back decades. Major industries could be affected if rules are changed.

“There’s an awful lot of regulation that flies under the radar that’s just about making sure the trains run on time,” said Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan.

Rachel Sachs, a health law expert at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, said that the complex set of rules devised and governed by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services could be challenged in new ways.

“There’s a lot of work to do in that process,” she said. “And therefore there are a lot of opportunities for challengers to pick at specific choices that C.M.S. and H.H.S. are making in the interpretation of these rules.”

The Supreme Court decision will require Congress to specify exactly what agencies like the C.D.C. can and cannot do, several analysts said. “Nobody has any confidence that Congress can get its act together to do that,” said Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association.

The Biden administration has written health regulations anticipating a world without the Chevron deference, said Abbe R. Gluck, a health law expert at Yale Law School who served in the White House at the beginning of Mr. Biden’s term. For that reason, she thinks litigation over the most recent rules may be less influenced by this change than challenges concerning some older regulations.

“The Supreme Court has not relied on Chevron in quite a few years,” she said. “So the federal government, including H.H.S., has become accustomed to drafting regulations and making its interpretation arguments as if Chevron did not exist.”

“They’ve already adjusted,” Ms. Gluck said.

Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service

The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service both have broad mandates to interpret legislation when they write rules and regulations and enforce the tax code.

Since the Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022, the Treasury Department has been racing to roll out regulations related to billions of dollars of clean energy tax credits that provide huge incentives for things such as the manufacturing of batteries or the purchase of electric vehicles. The Treasury Department has received pushback from some lawmakers who contend that it has not followed the intent of the law.

Although Congress creates the tax code through legislation, the I.R.S. has wide latitude in how the tax laws are administered. Accounting experts have suggested that the court’s ruling could complicate the agency’s ability to administer the tax code without specific direction from Congress.

A recent example is how the agency last year delayed enforcement of a contentious tax policy that would require users of digital wallets and e-commerce platforms to report small transactions. The new provision was introduced in the tax code in 2021 but was strongly opposed by lobbyists and small businesses.

The I.R.S. received criticism from some lawmakers for delaying the policy, but the agency defended its decision by arguing that taxpayers needed a longer transition period before the measure should be enforced to avoid a chaotic tax season.

Elizabeth Dias , Teddy Rosenbluth and Roni Rabin contributed reporting.

Make a gift to PBS News Hour and your donation will be doubled !

Support Intelligent, In-Depth, Trustworthy Journalism.

Mark Sherman, Associated Press Mark Sherman, Associated Press

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-halts-enforcement-of-epas-plan-to-limit-downwind-pollution-from-power-plants

Supreme Court halts enforcement of EPA’s plan to limit downwind pollution from power plants

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is putting the Environmental Protection Agency’s air pollution-fighting “good neighbor” plan on hold while legal challenges continue, the conservative-led court’s latest blow to federal regulations.

The justices in a 5-4 vote on Thursday rejected arguments by the Biden administration and Democratic-controlled states that the plan was cutting air pollution and saving lives in 11 states where it was being enforced and that the high court’s intervention was unwarranted.

The rule is intended to restrict smokestack emissions from power plants and other industrial sources that burden downwind areas with smog-causing pollution. It will remain on hold while the federal appeals court in Washington considers a challenge to the plan from industry and Republican-led states.

The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has increasingly reined in the powers of federal agencies, including the EPA, in recent years. The justices have restricted the EPA’s authority to fight air and water pollution — including a landmark 2022 ruling that limited the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming. The court also shot down a vaccine mandate and blocked President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program.

The court is currently weighing whether to overturn its 40-year-old Chevron decision, which has been the basis for upholding a wide range of regulations on public health, workplace safety and consumer protections.

Three energy-producing states — Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia — have challenged the air pollution rule, along with the steel industry and other groups, calling it costly and ineffective. They had asked the high court to put it on hold while their challenge makes it way through the courts.

The challengers pointed to decisions in courts around the country that have paused the rule in a dozen states, arguing that those decisions have undermined the EPA’s aim of providing a national solution to the problem of ozone pollution because the agency relied on the assumption that all 23 states targeted by the rule would participate.

The issue came to the court on an emergency basis, which almost always results in an order from the court without arguments before the justices.

But not this time. The court heard arguments in late February, when a majority of the court seemed skeptical of arguments from the administration and New York, representing Democratic states, that the “good neighbor” rule was important to protect downwind states that receive unwanted air pollution from other states.

The EPA has said power plant emissions dropped by 18% last year in the 10 states where it has been allowed to enforce its rule, which was finalized a year ago. Those states are Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. In California, limits on emissions from industrial sources other than power plants are supposed to take effect in 2026.

The rule is on hold in another dozen states because of separate legal challenges. Those states are Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

States that contribute to ground-level ozone, or smog, are required to submit plans ensuring that coal-fired power plants and other industrial sites don’t add significantly to air pollution in other states. In cases in which a state has not submitted a “good neighbor” plan — or in which the EPA disapproves a state plan — the federal plan was supposed to ensure that downwind states are protected.

Ground-level ozone, which forms when industrial pollutants chemically react in the presence of sunlight, can cause respiratory problems, including asthma and chronic bronchitis. People with compromised immune systems, the elderly and children playing outdoors are particularly vulnerable.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Support PBS News:

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

How a draft opinion on Idaho’s abortion ban was mistakenly posted by the Supreme Court

Politics Jun 26

Why San Jose air is worse than other cities

Don't miss a story.

Get San José Spotlight headlines delivered to your inbox.

Air quality in the South Bay is worse than neighboring parts of the San Francisco Bay Area—and it hits underserved communities hardest.

According to data compiled by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, ozone levels are consistently higher in the San Jose area because of traffic congestion, weather and topography. Local studies show air pollution causes health issues like asthma, and communities of color and low-income neighborhoods tend to see higher levels of pollution than wealthier, whiter neighborhoods due to their proximity to highways and industrial areas.

Since May, ozone levels in the Santa Clara Valley have been worse on average than any other region monitored by the district, out-smogging even the refinery-laden North Bay, which includes San Rafael and Vallejo. Levels are similar to the traffic-clogged Eastern Zone, which incorporates Fairfield, Livermore and San Ramon.

“The Santa Clara Valley has consistently worse air quality (compared to other zones),” said Richard Lam, a district meteorologist.

Related Stories

Conditions in the Santa Clara Valley are perfect for creating and trapping ozone, Lam told San José Spotlight. The valley’s warmth and sun turn traffic emissions into the smoggy gas, and the mountains bordering Santa Clara County trap it there.

Average ozone levels in the valley tend to remain below the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s safety threshold, and they’ve only spiked to unsafe levels three times this year in Santa Clara Valley. But local studies show long-term exposure to air pollution in congested areas like San Jose can cause significant health impacts.

In an air pollution study published in May, San Francisco-based tech company Aclima collected air quality data block-to-block across 5,000 square miles and 101 Bay Area cities.

Across the region, communities of color and low-income neighborhoods are often closer to congested highways and emission-spewing factories where air quality is worse, the study found. For instance, 81.2% of Santa Clara County residents of color live in areas with unsafe levels of nitrogen dioxide, a harmful gas found in fuel exhaust. Nearly 95% breathe harmful particles in their neighborhoods, the study found.

Nonprofit air monitor Sustainable Silicon Valley, which studies air pollution in East Palo Alto, found child asthma cases are 2.5 times higher than the national rate in the traffic-clogged city, which borders a freeway and sits at the west end of the Dumbarton Bridge.

“There are pockets in all these communities that have worse air pollution than others,” Sustainable Silicon Valley Chief Scientist Anthony Strawa told San José Spotlight. “I think that if you did the same kind of study (in San Jose) those values would hold.”

Strawa is doing just that. His organization recently launched an air quality study and community outreach program, installing air monitors at 10 East San Jose high schools and working with students to research air quality in those communities. The study is already collecting data.

Wildfire and ozone

Smoke can push ozone and other harmful pollutants to unsafe levels, and as California nears the supposed end of an ever-expanding wildfire season, experts have advised residents to be mindful of ozone and other pollutants in their neighborhoods.

“Ozone can damage and inflame the lining in our lungs similar to how sun causes a sunburn on our skin,” air district spokesperson Erin Demerritt told San José Spotlight, noting it’s particularly harmful to pregnant women, the elderly and young children who breathe more rapidly than adults.

When pollution levels get too high, the district issues spare the air alerts so residents know when to cut back on driving and other polluting activities. The best way to cut back on air pollutants is for local residents to drive gasoline-powered cars less and use public transportation more, Demerritt said.

Check current air pollution levels in your area .

Contact Brian Howey at [email protected] or  @SteelandBallast  on Twitter.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.

I want to receive updates: Daily Weekly

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

News | November 28, 2011

Nasa envisions clean energy from algae.

Massive algae blooms grow depending on the amount of light they receive, the temperature, and the amount of nutrients available in the water.

When astronauts go into space, they must bring everything they need to survive. Living quarters on a spaceship require careful planning and management of limited resources, which is what inspired the project called “Sustainable Energy for Spaceship Earth.” It is a process that produces "clean energy" biofuels very efficiently and very resourcefully.

Oil producing algae

"The reason why algae are so interesting is because some of them produce lots of oil," said Jonathan Trent, the lead research scientist on the Spaceship Earth project at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. “In fact, most of the oil we are now getting out of the ground comes from algae that lived millions of years ago. Algae are still the best source of oil we know."

Algae are similar to other plants in that they remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, produce oxygen as a by-product of photosynthesis, and use phosphates, nitrogen, and trace elements to grow and flourish. Unlike many plants, they produce fatty, lipid cells loaded with oil that can be used as fuel.

Land plants currently used to produce biodiesel and other fuels include soy, canola, and palm trees. For the sake of comparison, soy beans produce about 50 gallons of oil per acre per year; canola produces about 160 gallons per acre per year, and palms about 600 gallons per acre per year. But some types of algae can produce at least 2,000 gallons of oil per acre per year.

The basic problem is growing enough algae to meet our country's enormous energy-consumption demands. Although algae live in water, land-based methods are used to grow algae. Two land-based methods used today are open ponds and closed bioreactors. Open ponds are shallow channels filled with freshwater or seawater, depending on the kind of algae that is grown. The water is circulated with paddle wheels to keep the algae suspended and the pond aerated. They are inexpensive to build and work well to grow algae, but have the inevitable problem of water evaporation. To prevent the ponds from drying out or becoming too salty, conditions that kill the algae, an endless supply of freshwater is needed to replenish the evaporating water.

When closed bioreactors are used to grow algae, water evaporation is no longer the biggest problem for algae's mass-production. Bioreactors, enclosed hardware systems made of clear plastic or glass, present their own problems. They can be computer-controlled and monitored around the clock for a more bountiful supply of algae. However, storing water on land and controlling its temperature are the big problems, making them prohibitively expensive to build and operate. In addition, both systems require a lot of land.

Plastic bags and waste water

"The inspiration I had was to use offshore membrane enclosures to grow algae. We're going to deploy a large plastic bag in the ocean, and fill it with sewage. The algae use sewage to grow, and in the process of growing they clean up the sewage," said Trent.

Floating on the ocean's surface, the inexpensive plastic bags will be collecting solar energy as the algae inside produce oxygen by photosynthesis. The algae will feed on the nutrients in the sewage, growing rich, fatty cells. Through osmosis, the bag will absorb carbon dioxide from the air, and release oxygen and fresh water. The temperature will be controlled by the heat capacity of the ocean, and the ocean's waves will keep the system mixed and active.

When the process is completed, biofuels will be made and sewage will be processed. For the first time, harmful sewage will no longer be dumped into the ocean. The algae and nutrients will be contained and collected in a bag. Not only will oil be produced, but nutrients will no longer be lost to the sea. According to Trent, the system ideally is fail proof. Even if the bag leaks, it won’t contaminate the local environment. The enclosed fresh water algae will die in the ocean.

The bags are expected to last two years, and will be recycled afterwards. The plastic material may be used as plastic mulch, or possibly as a solid amendment in fields to retain moisture.

“We have to remember,” Trent said, quoting Marshall McLuhan: “we are not passengers on spaceship Earth, we are the crew.”

• Show search

Stories in California

Stand Up to Plastic

You deserve to decide what goes into your environment and your body.

Last updated April 26, 2024

A Closer Look: It’s time to tackle Microfiber Pollution

Microplastics are largely invisible to the naked eye, but they pose a major threat to people and the planet. These tiny fragments of plastic are less than five millimeters in diameter but collectively, they make up about a third of the plastic in our oceans. Microplastics have been found from the heights of Mt. Everest to the deepest ocean trenches. They are also in our bodies. Today, nearly every human on earth consumes microplastics through food, water and air, raising serious concerns about long-term impacts on human health.

Clothing is a big part of the problem

Our clothes release microplastics (called microfibers) into the environment during manufacturing and later when they’re washed. Estimates show that for every 500 t-shirts manufactured, the equivalent of one t-shirt is lost as microfiber pollution during production alone. Every wash cycle can then generate as many as 18 million microfibers.

Brands can change this.

TNC is joining forces with the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) to engage cutting edge, globally-recognized apparel companies to implement cost-effective solutions that can nearly eliminate textile microfiber pollution from the manufacturing process.

The Plastic Problem

Our plastic problem is bigger than you think, and many of us can’t go a single hour without touching plastic. Plastics are used in almost every industry now—from construction and electronics to agriculture and textiles—and lurk in our bottled water. About 11 million tons of plastic even enter the ocean every year. But plastic isn’t just in the ocean, it’s everywhere. It’s in our drinking water, it falls in our rain and studies show that harmful plastic pollution disproportionately affects disadvantaged communities. No matter who you are or where you live, plastic is in your body. And as the fifth largest economy in the world, California is a big part of the problem.

Plastic Pollution by the Numbers

of plastic produced today is "single use"

Million tons of plastic enters the ocean every year

Million lbs of plastic microfibers contaminate CA every year

Million tons of greenhouse gases emitted yearly

In California, you are eating and breathing plastic every day.

• How We Got Here

Who's Behind This?

Big plastic is big oil.  Most plastic is made from fossil fuel, and the pace of plastic production is skyrocketing. 

Solutions That Fall Short

The plastic industry wants to make the problem our responsibility as Californians, and so far, they’ve done a pretty good job. They’ve made it our job to clean up our beaches and recycle, all while they ramp up plastic production every year. California can’t keep pace with plastic’s exponential growth and our environment and communities are paying the price.

We can’t solve this problem by cleaning up the plastic industry’s mess for them, we have to work together to clean up the plastic industry.

Our Approach

We are thoughtfully implementing solutions that match the scale and pace of the plastic pollution crisis, from reducing plastic production and consumption of plastic to improving management of plastic waste. We are making tremendous progress on reducing the threat of plastics to people and nature by advancing collaborative research to improve scientific understanding of the issue, positioning California as a policy leader in advancing tangible solutions and proving out the next generation of high-impact innovations and collaborative business models.

A Landmark Victory

In 2022 TNC helped pass the country’s most comprehensive legislation to date to curb plastic pollution, California’s Senate Bill 54. This legislation:

• Mandates a 25% reduction in single-use plastic production. 
• Protects and restores lands, waters and communities most impacted by plastic pollution by requiring producers to pay $5 billion into an environmental mitigation fund. 
• Holds producers financially responsible for improving California’s recycling and composting infrastructure.

Applying the lessons learned from this process, we will continue to pursue comprehensive policies across other major sectors of plastic use in California and work to incentivize plastic-heavy industries to advance innovative solutions to reduce plastic use at the source .

Recycling isn’t enough

California can’t recycle most of the plastic that goes in your bin. Our state’s facilities can’t keep pace with plastic’s exponential growth, and they can’t handle many types of plastics produced today. 

Going Global: UN Environmental Programme  

The UN Environmental Assembly passed a historic resolution in March 2022 calling for an international, legally binding agreement to end plastic pollution. Now people from across the globe are working to make that a reality— including the TNC’s Plastics Strategy team . 

TNC is working alongside leaders in California and beyond to influence the scope and text of the world’s first treaty on plastic pollution. They offer a critical perspective based on principles negotiated within California’s landmark single-use plastics legislation, Senate Bill 54.

With policies like SB 54 serving as a blueprint, the UN’s goal is to complete the treaty by the end of 2024, which would make it the fastest international treaty ever negotiated. Over 175 countries are looking to sign on. 

Corporate Engagement

TNC is working with partners to drive change, leveraging new technologies and business models to prove out and implement innovative solutions across the plastic lifecycle. As part of this, we are generating foundational research and partnering with forward-thinking global clothing brands to keep plastic microfibers from leaching into the environment when clothes are produced and washed.

Decreasing the Harm of Plastics Used Agriculture

The use of plastics in agriculture across the state of California, and even the globe, is now ubiquitous. Plastics like irrigation tape, plastic mulch and greenhouse film provide a cheap and versatile means to effectively increase productivity and efficiency in food systems. The plastics used to water crops in California alone could encircle the Earth more than 588 times each year. However, these plastics are largely single-use, making them a major source of plastic waste and, when degraded or discarded, agricultural plastic pollution can pose a serious threat to human and ecosystem health. There is growing concern about the impacts of these plastics accumulating in our soil, leaching into nearby communities and embedding into the food that makes it to our shelves. TNC is exploring solutions that can decrease the harm of plastics on both people and planet and ensure that we have a healthy food system to support us in the future.

Science and Research

TNC is advancing actionable science and research, and leveraging new technologies to better understand the dynamics, drivers and impacts of plastic pollution.

• TNC has conducted a statewide agricultural plastic waste analysis to quantify the amount of plastics used in agriculture in California and inform potential interventions.  
• We’re partnering with industry experts to analyze the full lifecycle of California’s plastics for the first time. Now that many of our policies have gone into effect, TNC is working with partners to identify cost effective approaches to monitor plastic waste.
• TNC is leveraging cutting edge remote sensing and machine learning approaches to map plastic use across the state.  
• TNC has evaluated the amount of microfibers entering California’s lands and waters from our washing machines , and explored the footprint of microfiber shedding from clothing during manufacturing , to determine the best solutions to address the problem. 

Looking for a deeper dive into the health effects of microplastics? Read this article from the Annals of Global Health .

Quote : Alexis Jackson, Ph.D.

The future is in our hands. It’s time to tackle plastic pollution at the source and protect our environment, our communities and our bodies.

It's Now or Forever

While accomplishments like Senate Bill 54 mark significant milestones, the work doesn’t stop there. TNC is leveraging the momentum of this victory to further transform California into a global leader on effective and impactful plastic waste reduction, from single-use packaging to agriculture-derived plastics and the small synthetic fibers shed from your clothing. We are learning from each intervention, and prioritizing those solutions which can deliver the greatest impact on the shortest timeline!

It’s up to us to continue to ensure that future generations do not inherit a world choked with plastic. Together, we can make it a reality.

You may also like

California History

We're celebrating 60 years of conservation in the Golden State.

California Land Management

We're invested in making conservation business as usual so that we can change the trajectory of our planet. It's already working in California!

Conservation Technology

Tapping California’s Most Abundant Resource: Innovation

Make a Difference in California

Together, we can achieve transformative change on a scale that’s attainable—for California, and for the world.

IELTS Mentor "IELTS Preparation & Sample Answer"

• Skip to content
• Jump to main navigation and login

Nav view search

• IELTS Sample

IELTS Writing Task 2/ Essay Topics with sample answer.

Ielts writing task 2 sample 314 - these days noise and air pollution are serious environmental problems, ielts writing task 2/ ielts essay:, these days noise and air pollution are serious environmental problems. some people think that air travel is to be blamed. others believe that we should reduce the number of vehicles on the roads..

• IELTS Essay

IELTS Materials

• IELTS Bar Graph
• IELTS Line Graph
• IELTS Table Chart
• IELTS Flow Chart
• IELTS Pie Chart
• IELTS Letter Writing
• Academic Reading

Useful Links

• IELTS Secrets
• Band Score Calculator
• Exam Specific Tips
• Useful Websites
• IELTS Preparation Tips
• Academic Reading Tips
• Academic Writing Tips
• GT Writing Tips
• Listening Tips
• Speaking Tips
• IELTS Grammar Review
• IELTS Vocabulary
• IELTS Cue Cards
• IELTS Life Skills
• Letter Types

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Copyright Notice
• HTML Sitemap

Take an IELTS test in or nearby Santa Clara

Are you preparing to take an IELTS test in or nearby Santa Clara, United States? You can find all the IELTS test dates and test locations here on admissiontestportal.com. Click on "Check availability" to access all available IELTS exams in Santa Clara and register to save your spot within a couple of minutes. Continue reading

British Council - IELTS USA - Newark (UKVI test location)

Test dates are subject to availability. Please check real-time availability on the British Council Online Registration System. More information

British Council - IELTS USA - Newark, NJ

California state university, east bay-hayward, about the city of santa clara.

There are test locations in Santa Clara offered and certified by British Council. The test fee specified for the exam locations above is indicative and can vary depending on test date, test location and test type. Please visit the test location website for most recent information.

Make sure to prepare for the IELTS exam . Make sure you will get a good score on your test by selecting an English language program. Choose a top language school that can advance you to your intended English level and start your IELTS preparation course .

There are several standardised English tests that you can take to proof your English level, such as the PTE (Pearson Test of English), TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language), CAE (Cambridge Advanced English) and IELTS (International English Language Testing System), offered by British Council and IDP. IELTS is the most popular of these tests, with British Council offering more than 1000 test locations and being accepted by more than 11,500 organisations world-wide.

Universities in Santa Clara that accept the IELTS test

Santa clara university, 10 most popular study destinations for students in united states.

1. United Kingdom

Find Bachelor’s programmes in United Kingdom Find Master's programmes in United Kingdom Find PhD programmes in United Kingdom

2. United States

Find Bachelor’s programmes in United States Find Master's programmes in United States Find PhD programmes in United States

Find Bachelor’s programmes in Germany Find Master's programmes in Germany Find PhD programmes in Germany

4. Netherlands

Find Bachelor’s programmes in Netherlands Find Master's programmes in Netherlands Find PhD programmes in Netherlands

Find Bachelor’s programmes in Canada Find Master's programmes in Canada Find PhD programmes in Canada

Find Bachelor’s programmes in France Find Master's programmes in France Find PhD programmes in France

7. Australia

Find Bachelor’s programmes in Australia Find Master's programmes in Australia Find PhD programmes in Australia

Find Bachelor’s programmes in Italy Find Master's programmes in Italy Find PhD programmes in Italy

Find Bachelor’s programmes in Spain Find Master's programmes in Spain Find PhD programmes in Spain

10. Switzerland

Find Bachelor’s programmes in Switzerland Find Master's programmes in Switzerland Find PhD programmes in Switzerland

IELTS: A Global Benchmark in 2024

Ace Your IELTS: Free Practice Tests on Admissiontestportal

Short Guide on How to Prepare for IELTS at Home and Take the Test Online

The dream of studying abroad

Other cities in california providing ielts tests.

• Agoura Hills
• Aliso Viejo
• American Canyon
• Apple Valley
• Arden-Arcade
• Arroyo Grande
• Avocado Heights
• Bakersfield
• Baldwin Park
• Barstow Heights
• Bell Gardens
• Beverly Hills
• Bloomington
• Boyle Heights
• Cameron Park
• Canoga Park
• Casa de Oro-Mount Helix
• Castro Valley
• Cathedral City
• Chino Hills
• Chula Vista
• Citrus Heights
• Culver City
• Desert Hot Springs
• Diamond Bar
• East Los Angeles
• East Palo Alto
• East Rancho Dominguez
• El Dorado Hills
• Florence-Graham
• Foothill Farms
• Foster City
• Fountain Valley
• Garden Grove
• Granite Bay
• Hacienda Heights
• Hermosa Beach
• Huntington Beach
• Huntington Park
• Imperial Beach
• Jurupa Valley
• La Cañada Flintridge
• La Crescenta-Montrose
• Ladera Ranch
• Laguna Beach
• Laguna Hills
• Laguna Niguel
• Laguna Woods
• Lake Elsinore
• Lake Forest
• Lemon Grove
• Los Angeles
• Manhattan Beach
• McKinleyville
• Mead Valley
• Mission District
• Mission Viejo
• Monterey Park
• Moreno Valley
• Morgan Hill
• Mountain View
• National City
• Newport Beach
• North Highlands
• North Hills
• North Hollywood
• North Tustin
• Pacific Grove
• Palm Desert
• Palm Springs
• Paso Robles
• Pico Rivera
• Pleasant Hill
• Port Hueneme
• Porterville
• Rancho Cordova
• Rancho Cucamonga
• Rancho Mirage
• Rancho Palos Verdes
• Rancho Penasquitos
• Rancho San Diego
• Rancho Santa Margarita
• Redondo Beach
• Redwood City
• Rohnert Park
• Rowland Heights
• San Bernardino
• San Clemente
• San Fernando
• San Francisco
• San Gabriel
• San Jacinto
• San Juan Capistrano
• San Leandro
• San Lorenzo
• San Luis Obispo
• Santa Barbara
• Santa Clarita
• Santa Fe Springs
• Santa Maria
• Santa Monica
• Santa Paula
• Sherman Oaks
• Silver Lake
• Simi Valley
• South El Monte
• South Lake Tahoe
• South Pasadena
• South San Francisco
• South San Jose Hills
• South Whittier
• South Yuba City
• Spring Valley
• Stevenson Ranch
• Studio City
• Temple City
• Thousand Oaks
• Twentynine Palms
• Universal City
• Valley Glen
• Victorville
• Visitacion Valley
• Walnut Creek
• Walnut Park
• Watsonville
• West Carson
• West Covina
• West Hollywood
• West Puente Valley
• West Sacramento
• West Whittier-Los Nietos
• Westminster
• Willowbrook
• Winter Gardens
• Woodland Hills
• Yorba Linda
• Yucca Valley

Test your English language proficiency

Free practice material.

Thanks for signing up. You will receive an email with our practice material shortly.

Do you also know that we have a special reduction of 20% on IELTS preparation courses from Impact Learning? Take the best possible IELTS preparation course and achieve a high score for your admittance to your university.