AC-T2-222 Academic · Task 2 · advanced · 40 min · 250+ words Discuss Both Views Economy

Cashless Shops

The question

Some countries are considering a law that would require every shop to accept card or mobile payments and to stop accepting cash altogether. Supporters believe this would make transactions faster and safer, while opponents argue it would exclude people without bank accounts. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Instructions

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. • Present both views in separate body paragraphs, with equal depth. • Make clear which view each paragraph represents. • State your own opinion clearly in the introduction or conclusion. • Explain why each point matters rather than simply listing points.

How to approach this discuss both views question

A discuss-both-views essay asks you to explain two opinions fairly and then give your own.

Introduce both views and say you will discuss them.
Paragraph 1: the first view with reasons and an example.
Paragraph 2: the second view with reasons and an example.
State your own opinion clearly (in the introduction or conclusion) and keep it consistent.

How to plan this answer

Structure

Introduction: paraphrase the proposed law requiring card or mobile payment and no cash, outline both views and state your opinion.
Body 1: the supporters' view, that digital payment is faster and safer, supported by one specific advantage such as reduced cash handling and theft.
Body 2: the opponents' view, that people without bank accounts or digital skills would be excluded, with one concrete example.
Body 3: a concession or nuance, such as the risk of card-system outages, which strengthens one side or shows where the balance lies.
Conclusion: restate your opinion and suggest a compromise, such as a legal duty to accept cash in some form.

Idea bank

Speed: contactless payments take seconds, shortening queues in busy shops and reducing the time staff spend counting change.
Cash handling costs: small retailers must count, transport and bank their takings, which costs money and carries a risk of theft.
Exclusion: people without bank accounts, some people in debt and some older people who are uncomfortable with apps may be unable to buy basic goods.
Outages: card and app systems can fail during power cuts or network faults, and bank IT failures such as the 2018 TSB outage have locked customers out of their accounts.
Privacy: cash leaves no record, while digital payments create traceable data that some people find intrusive.
Compromise: a rule requiring shops to accept cash in some form, or an exemption for small businesses, would protect access while still allowing digital payment.

Useful vocabulary

a cashless society: Critics warn that a cashless society could leave some people behind.
to exclude: A card-only policy could exclude people without bank accounts.
contactless payment: Contactless payment has made shopping quicker in busy shops.
unbanked: Unbanked residents rely on cash for everyday purchases.
a digital divide: A digital divide leaves some older people less able to pay by card.
to handle cash: Handling cash is costly for small retailers, who must count and bank takings.
to be susceptible to: Card systems are susceptible to network outages.
to safeguard access: A legal duty would safeguard access to cash for vulnerable customers.
a fallback option: Cash can serve as a fallback option when electronic systems fail.
traceable transactions: Some people object that digital payments create traceable transactions.

Common mistakes

Mixing both views into one paragraph, or using 'some people' without showing which view a paragraph represents.
Reducing 'safer' to theft only, when the safety argument also covers system failures.
Ending with 'it depends' and no clear stance on the proposed law.
Using examples about cryptocurrency or online fraud instead of payments in shops.
Repeating 'cash is disappearing' as a reason, without explaining why that is a problem or an advantage.

Examiner tip: Label each body paragraph with the view it represents in its topic sentence, give the opposing view equal development, and only then state your position.

Model answers by band score

Written for this question to show what changes from one band to the next. Try the task yourself first, then compare.

Band 6 answer

Some countries want to make a law that every shop must accept only card or mobile payments and not take cash. Some people support this idea because it is faster and safer, but other people say it is unfair for people who has no bank account. In my opinion, cash should still be accepted in the shops. On the one hand, there are some advantages of cashless shops. Firstly, paying by card or phone is very quick. The customer just touch the machine and the shop assistant do not need to count the money or give the change, so the queue is shorter. Secondly, it is more safe for the shops. If there is no cash in the shop, the thieves cannot steal it, and the workers do not need to carry big amount of money to the bank. For example, in Sweden many shops are cashless and the number of robberies is going down. On the other hand, there are many people who do not have a bank account or a smartphone. They are often old people, poor people and some immigrants. If the shops do not accept cash, these people cannot buy even food or the medicine, and this is very unfair. Also, sometimes the machines or the internet is not working, for example when there is a power cut, so nobody can pay anything. Cash is always working in this situation. In my opinion, the government should not forbid the cash. Cashless payment is a good thing and the shops should encourage it, but a law which force everybody is too strong. It is better to keep both ways of paying, so every customer can choose what is the most suitable for him. In conclusion, cashless shops have some benefits but the disadvantages are more serious, so I disagree with this law.

Why this is band 6

Both views get a body paragraph each and the writer's opinion is clear in the introduction and conclusion, so the task is fully covered.
Ideas are relevant with simple examples (Sweden, power cuts) but stay general and are only partly developed.
Noticeable errors ('people who has', 'the machine... touch', 'a law which force') and repeated vocabulary ('people', 'cash'), though the meaning is always clear.
Band 7 would explain why each point matters, use a wider range of vocabulary and control subject-verb agreement.

Band 7 answer

A proposal to require all shops to stop accepting cash has divided opinion. Supporters argue that card and mobile payments are quicker and safer, while critics fear that people without bank accounts would be shut out. Although I recognise the benefits of digital payment, I believe that such a law would be a mistake. Those in favour of a cashless system make two main points. First, electronic transactions are faster: customers simply tap a card or phone, so queues shorten and staff no longer have to count change. Second, removing cash reduces crime, because a shop with no notes in the till is a less attractive target for thieves, and employees are not required to carry large sums to the bank. Sweden, where many retailers already operate without cash, has seen a marked fall in robberies. However, the opposing view carries more weight. Millions of people, including elderly pensioners, migrants and those on very low incomes, do not hold bank accounts or own smartphones. Under a compulsory cashless law, they could not buy basic necessities such as food or medicine, which would amount to a serious form of social exclusion. In addition, digital systems are vulnerable to technical failures such as power cuts or network outages, and in such cases cash is the only reliable way of paying. On balance, I would argue that the government should encourage digital payments through incentives, but leave shops free to accept cash. Speed and security are valuable, yet they should not be bought at the expense of the most vulnerable customers. In conclusion, while cashless shops offer clear advantages, a law banning cash would exclude too many people and reduce the resilience of the payment system.

Why this is band 7

Both views are presented in separate paragraphs with a clear, consistent opinion ('such a law would be a mistake') and a relevant example (Sweden).
Good range of vocabulary and complex sentences ('shut out', 'social exclusion', 'vulnerable to technical failures') with only a few small errors.
Explanation is mostly sound, but the supporters' paragraph is a little thinner than the opponents' and the examples remain generic.
Band 8 would give both sides equal depth, with sharper, more precise reasoning on why each matters and more natural cohesion.

Band 8 answer

The idea of obliging every shop to accept only card or mobile payments is attractive to some policy makers, but it raises serious questions about fairness. While I accept that digital payment has real advantages, I do not believe it should be made compulsory. Supporters of the law emphasise speed and security. Contactless payments take only seconds, which shortens queues and frees staff from counting change, and in busy shops this can noticeably improve the customer experience. Security is a further consideration: a business that holds no cash is a far less tempting target for thieves, and its employees are spared the risk of carrying takings to the bank. Sweden, where cash now accounts for a tiny proportion of retail transactions, is often cited as proof that a society can function without notes and coins. Opponents, however, draw attention to who would be left behind. A significant minority of adults, particularly the elderly, the homeless and recent migrants, have no bank account or smartphone, and for them cash is the only practical means of buying food or medicine. Excluding them from basic shopping would be both unjust and, arguably, discriminatory. Moreover, a system that relies entirely on electronic networks is brittle: a power cut, a cyber-attack or a software fault could leave an entire town unable to trade. Weighing the two positions, I find the second more convincing. The benefits of speed and safety can largely be achieved through voluntary adoption, as many shops have already shown, whereas the harm caused by exclusion cannot be remedied once cash is outlawed. Governments would therefore do better to encourage digital payments while protecting access to cash. In conclusion, a law banning cash would sacrifice inclusion and resilience for convenience, and so I oppose it.

Why this is band 8

Both views get paragraphs of comparable depth, and the writer's opinion is signalled in the introduction and justified in the penultimate paragraph.
Precise and flexible language ('brittle', 'frees staff from counting change', 'cannot be remedied once cash is outlawed') with rare errors.
Reasons are explained rather than listed: the point about voluntary adoption versus irreversible exclusion is a mature piece of reasoning.
Band 9 would be fully natural with no hint of balance for its own sake, adding even more specific evidence and perfectly economical phrasing.

Band 9 answer

Proposals to compel every shop to take card or mobile payments and to refuse cash altogether are gaining ground in some countries. Supporters promise speed and security; critics warn of exclusion. I find the case for efficiency appealing, but I believe that outlawing cash would cause more harm than good. The argument in favour is not without merit. Contactless transactions take seconds, shorten queues and spare staff the tedium of counting change. A cashless premises is also a less attractive target for thieves, and employees no longer need to carry takings to the bank. Sweden, where notes and coins now account for only a tiny share of retail payments, is frequently held up as evidence that a modern economy can do without cash. Yet the opposing case carries greater moral and practical weight. A sizeable minority of adults, including many pensioners, migrants and people on very low incomes, hold no bank account and own no smartphone. For them, cash is not an inconvenience but the only way to buy food or medicine; a law that refused their money would effectively lock them out of everyday life. Furthermore, an economy that depends wholly on electronic networks is fragile, since a power cut, cyber-attack or software failure could leave an entire town unable to trade. On balance, the legitimate benefits of cashless payment can be secured without compulsion. Shops are already switching voluntarily, and governments can speed this up through incentives and by making basic accounts widely accessible. By contrast, once cash is banned, the damage to those excluded and to the system's resilience cannot easily be undone. In conclusion, convenience is a poor reason to remove a payment method on which the most vulnerable still depend, and I therefore oppose any legal ban on cash.

Why this is band 9

The introduction frames both views and states a nuanced position, which is then sustained and justified.
Both sides receive equal depth, and each point is explained in terms of consequences ('not an inconvenience but the only way to buy food or medicine').
Vocabulary and syntax are sophisticated and natural ('compel', 'held up as evidence', 'lock them out of everyday life') and the text is error-free.
The writer offers a practical alternative (incentives, accessible basic accounts) which fully develops the opinion, and the conclusion crystallises the argument.

Band levels are our estimate against the public IELTS criteria; they are not official scores.

Write your answer

Sign in with Google to write online and get 8 free answers marked each month against the IELTS band criteria. No card, no password.

Practise all four IELTS skills

Listening, Reading, Writing and Speaking with band 8 samples at ieltsa.org.

Try IELTS A