Các bài viết trong file này đều ở band khoảng 8.0-9.0 và mình
có sử dụng khá nhiều từ vựng học thuật để giúp mọi người
học thêm các từ quan trọng. Tuy nhiên có thể nó sẽ khó đối
với các bạn ở band 5.0-6.0 - các bạn có thể coi đây là một
nguồn để đọc lấy từ vựng và học các từ vựng theo chủ đề
trước đã nhé. Ngẫm kĩ hơn về các cách lập luận và cách dùng
từ vựng và ngữ pháp nữa nhé ;).
(Live stream no.3 - https://www.facebook.com/theIELTSguy - follow this page and write
an essay with me each week)
Some people think that mobile phones should be banned in public places like libraries,
shops and on public transport. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this
statement?
Opinions are divided on whether phones should be strictly prohibited in public spaces
such as libraries, shops or public transport. I believe that such a ban would prove
problematic and that there are conferred benefits from allowing people to use their
phones in these settings.
Granted, one might argue that phones should not be allowed in public areas because
the use of this device could annoy other people. A good example is that the sound of
someone talking on the phone or their notifications could distract people who are trying
to study in a library. However, this problem could be resolved without prohibiting the use
of phones completely in public spaces. A straightforward measure would be to ask
people to switch off the ringtones, turn on the vibration mode and answer their phone
call elsewhere to avoid annoying other people.
To add further credence to my assertion, I note that it would also be difficult to enforce a
ban on phones in public places. This is because it would require an unimaginable
amount of manpower to make it work: it would be unthinkable to have a police officer on
each bus journey or in each shop and library to enforce the said law. Perhaps the most
frequently cited reason for using phones in public is that phone users can quickly
contact their friends or family or the police in emergency cases.
In conclusion, banning phones in public areas would neither be necessary nor plausible.
Instead, people should pay attention to how they use their device in public places so
that they can benefit from it without disturbing others. (268 words)
(Live stream no.4 - https://www.facebook.com/theIELTSguy - follow this page and
write an essay with me each week)
Some people think that governments should ban dangerous sports, while others
think people should have freedom to do any sports or activity. Discuss both
views and give your own opinion.
Opinions are divided on whether extreme sports should be banned. I believe that this
proposal would be unenforceable due to the risky nature of these activities and that
people should be allowed to play any activities they like.
Granted, one might argue that there should be a ban on dangerous sports. This is
based on the assumption that any errors would probably cause the death of the player,
for example when he or she is sky diving or parkouring on the rooftops of towering
buildings. However, this line of reasoning is not sound because it fails to factor in the
plausibility of enforcing such a ban. No police officer would be willing to risk their
lives trying to prevent or arrest people who are parachuting off a mountain cliff or
free-falling from an air plane.
In addition to the impracticality of banning extreme sports, I am convinced that
people should be permitted to do any sports as long as they understand the risks
involved and receive sufficient training. For example, it is important that those who
attempt to try extreme sports like deep ocean diving, sky diving or bungee jumping
are required to register with a club, and that beginners must be accompanied by an
expert. It is also imperative that they be taught about what to do when an accident
occurs. With proper training and precautions, it would be relatively safe for people to
play sports with a high degree of risk.
In conclusion, I strongly feel that people should be given the autonomy to participate
in any sports or activities including so-called dangerous sports, provided that they are
aware of the danger involved and take appropriate precautions. (279 words)
(Live stream no.5 - https://www.facebook.com/theIELTSguy - follow this page and
write an essay with me each week)
Some people think that newly built houses should follow the style of old houses
in local areas. Others think that people should have freedom to build houses of
their own style. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Opinions are divided on whether new houses should be built in the style of existing
ones. I believe that this should only be adopted in areas that boast culturally or
architecturally interesting old houses, while house owners in other areas should have
the freedom to construct their houses according to their own choices.
Of course, if newly-built houses conform to the style of old ones, the uniform and
sometimes aesthetic look of the entire area could potentially lead to economic
benefits from increased tourism. Consider Hoi An, which is often hailed as a magnet
for tourists in Vietnam. Most houses in this town represent the architecture of the
Trinh - Nguyen dynasty, so failing to preserve the uniform look of this tourist
destination could damage tourism and result in cultural losses. This example sheds
light on why it makes sense to force residents to build houses in a certain style in
culturally important areas.
However, in most areas, old houses are simply old: they do not have any architectural
or aesthetic values. So, it is simply meaningless to force new houses to follow their
styles. In addition, householders would arguably feel more satisfied to live in a house
that meets their needs and suits their personal architectural taste. It naturally follows
that allowing them to build their houses in whatever way they want would lead to
higher levels of contentment among residents in the local area. This is in and of itself
a clear benefit, provided that their houses meet all safety regulations.
In conclusion, while I agree that houses in areas of cultural or architectural
significance should look uniform, the style of houses in other areas should be based
on the owner’s preference. (286 words)
(Live stream no.6 - https://www.facebook.com/theIELTSguy - follow this page and
write an essay with me each week)
While people in developing countries are happier than in the past,
people in developed countries are less happy. Why? What can be learnt
from this?
It is observed that inhabitants in third-world countries report higher levels of happiness,
compared to the past. However, those living in developed parts of the world are
counter-intuitively experiencing a decline in their overall happiness level.
People in developing nations feel increasingly happier because they are becoming more
materialistically prosperous. In the past, they may have struggled to meet basic
human needs such as shelter, food and education, but tremendous economic progress
made in these countries has relieved them the constant stress of trying to survive,
significantly facilitating their life satisfaction. Those living in developed countries, on the
other hand, have enjoyed high levels of living standards for a long time. As a result, many
of them are taking this privilege for granted and finding it difficult to lead a meaningful
and happy life.
There are different lessons people in both rich and less well-off countries can learn from
this development. Residents in wealthy nations need to understand that they are already
able to sustain their lives almost effortlessly. Therefore, they should be grateful for this
privilege and also find other sources of happiness such as sports, passions and
relationships. Those living in developing countries, on the other hand, need to
understand that there is a strong correlation between wealth and happiness, but this
link tends to disappear when they could reach a certain level of wealth. Once they have
reached this threshold, they should look for other ways to find meaning in life, for
example in the form of volunteering or pursuing passions.
In conclusion, once we have understood the causes behind people’s increased and
decreased happiness levels, there are certain lessons everyone can learn from this
development to live a more contented life. (287 words)
(Live stream no.7 - https://www.facebook.com/theIELTSguy - follow this page and
write an essay with me each week)
In some countries, parents are choosing to teach children themselves at home
instead of sending them to school. Do the advantages of homeschooling
outweigh the disadvantages?
Opinions are divided on whether homeschooling is beneficial or harmful. I believe
that this educational route, albeit having potential benefits, is not suitable for most
families due to its drawbacks.
First, homeschooling is often believed to be economical because parents would not
have to pay expensive tuition fees. However, it is important to note that this
educational approach does not actually save money in reality. This is because
parents would need to pay a large amount of money for lab equipment, and one
parent would need to stay at home to cater for their child’s needs, be these
academic or personal. Moreover, it is often the case that parents are not well-versed
in all school subjects, so there are further costs incurred for hiring specialist tutors.
Homeschool advocates also say that home-educated children would be significantly
less likely to experience bullying, having romantic relationships at too early an age
and peer pressure, all of which can potentially cause emotional, academic and even
mental problems. Nevertheless, experiencing or witnessing these problems
first-hand at school would actually be of benefit and would allow easier navigation of
tricky social and workplace situations in the future.
It is true that some parents feel that they could tailor their curriculum and
pedagogical approaches to best suit their young ones, thereby enhancing their
academic performance. This benefit, they say, is not found in traditional schooling
because of the large class sizes. However, a strong counter-argument would be that
very few parents have the intelligence and pedagogical training needed to do this.
In conclusion, I strongly feel that homeschooling is only beneficial for precious few
parents who are extremely intelligent, pedagogically trained, and possibly very
wealthy. For the vast majority of parents, the traditional educational route where
children are sent to school is by far a superior choice. (303 words)
Today, there are more men’s than women’s sports on TV.
Why?
Should TV channels give equal time for women's and men's sports?
It is true that media companies tend to broadcast men’s sports rather than women’s
ones given viewers’ preferences. I believe that they should keep their current practice;
otherwise, their viewership would be negatively affected, leading to financial losses.
Firstly, male athletes, who are physically stronger, can achieve feats that women cannot,
making male sports much more competitive and more exciting to watch. For example, a
professional male sprinter can finish a 100-meter sprint faster than his female
counterpart by a large margin. Furthermore, media companies can only earn money by
attracting and retaining viewers on their channels and platforms so that they can
monetize them by allowing businesses to run commercials. So, it is only logical that they
give proportional broadcast time to sports games desired by their viewers.
Although increasing broadcast time for women’s sports might approximate a sense of
equality for women, it would be an unwise course of action for the media industry. For
example, a large proportion of football fans would only choose to watch matches in
which men play regardless of how much broadcast time were given to women’s
matches. As a result, this would affect viewership and, by extension, their revenue.
Therefore, not until women’s sports can compete with men’s sports should they be
given more broadcast time.
In conclusion, men’s sports are screened more frequently than women’s ones because
men are innately physically stronger than women, allowing them achieve that which
would otherwise be impossible for women. Forcefully giving equal time for women’s and
men’s sports would simply be unsound due to viewers’ preferences. (284 words)
(Live stream no.8 - https://www.facebook.com/theIELTSguy - follow this page and
write an essay with me each week)
Large companies use sports events to promote their products. Some
people think it has a negative impact on sports. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?
It is common to see big companies sponsor sports events to promote their
products. This is believed to negatively affect the world of sport, but in my
opinion, this belief is deeply flawed.
Granted, one might argue that the sponsoring of sporting competitions
adversely affects sports. This is probably based on the assumption that the
value of sports could inevitably be lost if people started to think that the sports
they watch were nothing short of a marketing tool for corporations. The
waning value of sports is often said to lead to negative opinions about sports,
and consequently fewer loyal fans, which would prevent the development of
sports.
However, this line of reasoning is not sound. With sports competitions having
generous sponsors, the prizes for winners become a huge incentive for players
to practice more diligently. This often results in more skilled players, who can
achieve more seemingly impossible feats and bring about more intensely
competitive matches for fans to enjoy. The enormous financial backing from
large companies also allows sports organizations to hold bigger competitions
and satisfy more audiences, further contributing to the value and growth of
sports.
A final contentious point regarding companies sponsoring sports events
pertains to the promotions for some arguably harmful products like sugary
drinks. However, countless healthy products like protein bars and protective
equipment are often promoted during those events too. Sports fans, thus, are
more likely to benefit from a wide range of products advertised in sporting
events.
In conclusion, the fact that large firms often use sporting events to promote
their offerings benefits sports fans, sports players and the world of sport as a
whole. Therefore, I strongly feel that this development is extremely positive,
rather than negative as suggested. (286 words)
(Live stream no.9 - https://www.facebook.com/theIELTSguy - follow this page and
write an essay with me each week)
Many people say that we have developed into a “throw-away” culture,
because we are filling up our environment with so many plastic bags and
rubbish that we cannot fully dispose of. To what extent do you agree
with this opinion and what measures can you recommend reducing this
problem?
It is observed that our present-day world has descended into a throw-away
society. Personally, I think that there is little to disagree with in this
observation, but there are steps that both consumers and manufacturers can
take to mitigate the problem.
Anyone with any sense would acknowledge the existence of the
“throw-away” culture in our modern society. Regarding those on the
consuming end, plastic bags are made so cheap that few consumers bother
to reuse them. As for those on the producing end, manufacturers pay scant
attention to durability or sustainability in the course of production - possibly
to nudge people to make more frequent purchases. As a result, their
products can only be used for a short time and need to be replaced,
contributing further to the piling up of waste around the world.
The problem of our world being strewn with trash can be alleviated in a
number of ways. On an individual level, consumers need to be made aware of
the gravity of the “throw-away” lifestyle they are leading, for example by
mounting campaigns or teaching school children about this problem.
Hopefully, the dire facts they learn in these programs will scare them into
more frugal and sustainable lifestyles. Equally important is that producers
have to change their practices with durability and longevity in mind. This
process can be expedited, if consumers threaten to boycott companies that
stray from that direction.
In conclusion, our modern society has certainly developed into a
“throw-away” one, with single-use plastic bags being used irresponsibly, and
non-biodegradable waste piling up fast. The answers would perhaps lie in
awareness-raising campaigns and the collective effort of both the consuming
and producing ends. (285 words)
(Live stream no.10 - https://www.facebook.com/theIELTSguy - follow this page and
write an essay with me each week)
Some people think children have the freedom to make mistakes, while other
people believe that adults should prevent children from making mistakes. Discuss
both views and give your opinion.
A child’s upbringing plays an indisputably important role in shaping the person he
or she is going to become. Regarding whether children should be allowed to make
mistakes, there is surely a strong case to be made for both sides of the debate.
Supporters of parents’ intervention often highlight that most of the mistakes that
children are prone to making are plainly avoidable. For example, it is utterly
unnecessary for a child to get hurt to learn that they should be careful with knives,
fire and electricity. However, a strong counter-argument would be that parents
cannot be around their children all the time, and so letting them experiment with
new things and possibly make mistakes is simply inevitable.
Of course, it is the parents’ responsibility to shield their children from harm, and
forestalling their mistakes is certainly a way of fulfilling this duty. Also, it is
undoubtedly true that parents often feel better about themselves if they know that
they have done their best to protect and raise their child. Nevertheless,
overprotection would cause more harm than good. This is because children who
are shielded from everything will grow up to be overly dependent on others, which
is a very undesirable trait indeed.
Overall, the stronger argument is in favor of allowing children to learn from their
mistakes, with all the advantages of preparing them for their futures. Of course,
this is provided that parents have to intervene or give guidance when it comes to
important matters to help them avoid making mistakes that may damage their
entire futures. (263 words)
(Live stream no.11 - https://www.facebook.com/theIELTSguy - follow this page and
write an essay with me each week)
Museums and art galleries should concentrate on works that show the history
and culture of their own country rather than works of the other parts in the
world. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Opinions are divided on whether museums and art shows should place sole
emphasis on national works. I believe that national and international themes are
important in their own way, and should be both embraced.
Of course, some museums and art shows justifiably pay more attention to
presenting artifacts, relics and works of art of their own nation. This approach
attracts overseas visitors who are curious about an alien culture, and allows local
visitors to learn about their country. A good example is that of the Vietnam Museum
of Ethnology, which annually receives millions of both foreign and local visits. Most
visitors gave positive feedback regarding the organization of the institution - each
area solely shows the culture of each ethnic minority group in Vietnam. Thus, this
theme can promote the culture of the country to overseas friends, while instilling
national identity in domestic visitors.
However, museums or art galleries with a national or local focus are more often
than not visited by foreign visitors rather than local ones. An international focus, on
the other hand, offers a sense of novelty and consequently may appeal to more
people regardless of their nationality. Furthermore, museums and art institutions
with a global emphasis allow visitors to gain a more comprehensive
understanding of cultures around the world, which is in and of itself beneficial given
the ever-globalized world we are living in. Therefore, it is necessary that there
should be museums and art galleries catering for people whose interest is in
international works.
In conclusion, while some museums and art shows should focus on national
heritage, many others should be allowed to show artifacts and art works from other
countries. (276 words)
(Live stream no.12 - https://www.facebook.com/theIELTSguy - follow this page and
write an essay with me each week)
Nowadays in many countries women have full time jobs. Therefore, it is logical
to share household tasks evenly between men and women. To what extent do
you agree or disagree with this statement?
Women used to rarely work outside of the home, and so it was they who inevitably
undertook all household responsibilities. However, the majority of women now do
hold a full-time job and possibly work just as hard as their husbands do. This has
led some to believe that housework should be divided evenly between the
marriage partners. Although there is a strong case to be made for this proposal, it
would be unworkable in many situations.
Of course, there are several benefits to men equally sharing household chores
with their wives. On a familial level, this arrangement would avoid unnecessary
quarrels about housework, facilitating stronger bonds within the family. In fact, it is
not uncommon to see family breakdown resulting from men refusing to do or not
doing enough housework. On a societal level, if men were in charge of half of the
tasks around the house, this would promote gender equality. This argument
sounds ostensibly convincing, and is often used by supporters of the women’s
rights movement.
As admirable as this proposition may appear to be, it simply does not work in
many cases. For example, in many families, one partner often has to go on a
business trip or has a long commute. Therefore, it is inevitable that the other
partner has to be responsible for all household tasks. Similarly, one partner may
work significantly longer hours, as seen in how many medical professionals have
to work over 14 hours a day. So, the idea of sharing chores equitably in this case
would actually be unfair.
In conclusion, it would be ideal for men to do their share of housework, but the
idea of sharing it equally would simply be impractical in many cases. (288 words)
Livestream - group kín 12/9/2021
Research into new types of medicine and treatments is essential to improve health
and deal with diseases. Who do you think should fund this research: private
companies, individuals or the government?
Opinions are divided on who should pay for medical research. Personally, I believe that
private firms, the government and individuals all need to fund research in this field
because it benefits all parties involved.
To
begin
with,
the
key
reason
for
private-owned
companies,
especially
pharmaceutical ones, to subsidize medical research is that they directly benefit from
this. For example, if their findings lead to cures for certain diseases, they will certainly
reap financial rewards and boost their reputation. This can be seen in the case of
Johnson and Johnson, a large pharmaceutical firm in the US. This company has
successfully created a vaccine for Covid 19 and its stock has increased
exponentially.
The government also needs to cover the costs of medical studies for several reasons.
First, it is irrefutable that the government has the responsibility to ensure public health,
and investing in research in the field of healthcare is a way of fulfilling this duty. Second,
a healthier population is surely more productive, indicating potential economic gains for
the country.
Finally, individuals benefit from the advent of better treatments and medicines as they will
be better treated when they are ill. Thus, it is only logical that they should also pay for
medical research. Of course, one might argue that any piece of medical research
involves expensive laboratory equipment and knowledge privy to only leading
experts and scientists, and so most individuals cannot contribute in any way. However,
an easy way for them to make contributions is to simply pay their taxes so that the
government can have enough funds to pay for potential pieces of research in the field
of healthcare.
In conclusion, the state, private companies and the general public all benefit from
effective treatments and new types of medicine. Therefore, I strongly feel that each party
should pay for medical research to enhance public health. (309 words)
Some scientists believe that studying the behavior of 3-year-old children
can predict their criminality. To what extent do you think a crime is a
product of human nature, or is it possible to stop children from growing
up to be criminals?
The nature versus nurture debate is an old one, with renewed interest in
how each factor affects one’s criminality. Some psychoanalysts and
behaviorists argue that a child’s behavior is a good predictor of his or her
criminality. While there is indeed a strong case to be made for this argument,
I believe that it is entirely possible to prevent a child from growing up to be a
criminal.
Admittedly, one’s nature does contribute significantly to one’s criminality
level. For example, due to genes or a chemical imbalance in their brain,
some small children (from two to three years old), who are arguably not
affected much by environmental factors, show very low levels of empathy.
Thus, they hurt small animals or other children without any remorse.
Evidence shows that these children could be much more likely to commit
crime than ‘normal’ kids if left unchecked. In fact, criminologists have
found that a large proportion of violent offenders and murderers have
displayed such psychopathic behaviors when they were very young.
Nevertheless, one’s nurture can help suppress one’s criminality. To
illustrate this, psychopathic behaviors could be regulated with effective
parenting and education and appropriate intervention for example in the
form of therapy. Parents and teachers are encouraged to praise positive
actions by young children diagnosed with psychopathic traits to
incentivize them to do good. At the same time, by talking to therapists, these
children could understand more about their proclivity for malevolence and
avoid committing acts that might hurt other people. Therefore, it is
reasonable to say that children’s education, at home, at school, and in
society at large, can reduce the likelihood of them becoming criminals.
In conclusion, although one’s nature obviously contributes to one’s
criminality level, it is possible to help children to grow up to be normal
members of society. (316 words - band 9)
The world should have only one government rather than a national
government for each country. Do the advantages of this system
outweigh the disadvantages?
The concept of cosmocracy has surely been around for some time now, with
some idealists positing that there should be only one government in the world
rather than a national government in each nation. This proposal, albeit having
certain advantages, would cause infinite insoluble problems.
Some theorists have advanced the idea that a global government governing
the world would potentially reduce the possibility of conflicts between
regions. For example, the federal government in the US could address any
conflict of interest among its states by exercising its veto power. However,
this country comprises only 50 states, and most people in this country
believe in the same constitutions and values like capitalism and individualism.
An imaginary unitary government, by contrast, would have thousands of
states, and they would most certainly have differing, and even diametrically
opposing ideologies. This would ineluctably render the establishment of a
world government impractical.
Perhaps the most convincing argument against the idea of having one
universal centralized government would be that there would be no
restrictions on immigration. Thus, a highly likely scenario would be that an
overwhelmingly large number of people would flock to prosperous areas, as
seen in how many people are illegally entering the US at the moment. This
would unequivocally result in much fiercer competition for jobs, traffic
congestion and housing problems, which would, by extension, become a
breeding ground for crime. In light of these issues, some other foreseeable
outcomes would include resentment, unrelenting demonstrations and social
unrest.
In conclusion, the benefits of having an all-powerful, centralized government
in the world would undoubtedly be outweighed by its drawbacks. (266 words
band 9)
It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural
environment, such as the South pole. Do the advantages of this development
outweigh the disadvantages?
Given the availability of modern means of transport such as planes and cruise ships,
traveling to remote parts of the world is no longer an impossible task. I believe that this
possibility benefits both tourists and scientists.
Exploring far-flung natural places can be beneficial to travelers. No matter how many
tourist attractions there are in the world, a large number of globe-trotters still crave
novelty, which can be found in experiencing new activities or exotic cultures. Of course,
on the other hand, it is undoubtedly true that such a trip could be potentially
dangerous due to a number of factors such as climatic differences, animal attacks
or conflicts with local people. However, those who travel to remote areas are often
experienced travelers or are accompanied by seasoned tour guides or locals. As a
result, they would be informed about potential threats and ways to avoid them,
making their trip arguably safe and unforgettable.
Scientists can also benefit from visiting untouched parts of the world. Regardless of
how much we already know, there is still much that is unknown in the world of science.
Therefore, visiting such places could give scientists answers to many existing and future
problems. We can see this in how little scientists know about why novel viruses break
out every once in a while, and how global warming is affecting the lives and habitats of
elusive animals living in heavily wooded areas or deep under the sea. Granted, it is
reasonable to worry about the potential harm done to these animals and their
habitats by these trips, but with stringent regulations in place, the authorities can
eliminate such a possibility.
In conclusion, visiting remote areas of the world can impart otherwise unachievable
lessons and experience in tourists and people in the scientific world. (286 words)
Life was better when technology was simpler. To what extent do you
agree and disagree?
Opinions are divided on whether life was better before the advent of modern
technology. I believe that certain aspects of life were seemingly better
without technological advances, but our life has been radically improved with
the help of technology.
Granted, older generations often say that their social life was better when
technology was simple. For example, old people now often complain that
modern people depend too much on communication tools such as social
media sites. This dependence has inevitably led to lower levels of
face-to-face interaction, potentially undermining people’s relationships.
However, without modern communication tools, people previously had to
depend on letters to keep in touch with those living far away. This could take
days or even weeks for a person to receive a letter, but people nowadays can
instantly call or text each other via social networking sites. If used in
moderation, these advanced communication tools can keep people ‘closer’
to one another, greatly improving their relationships.
To add further credence to my assertion, I note how technology has evidently
enhanced numerous other aspects of life. First and foremost, with advanced
irrigation systems and the use of pesticides, crop yields have been improved
exponentially. The abundance of food in most parts of the world has helped
deal with starvation and hunger, and so relieved large proportions of the
world population of the constant day-to-day struggle to survive. Furthermore,
improvements in medical technology mean that sick people are treated more
effectively, thereby allowing people to live longer and enjoy their lives more.
Finally, the internet has facilitated teleworking and online learning, allowing a
great number of people to pursue their educational or professional goals.
This greatly contributes to their life satisfaction.
In conclusion, technology, albeit potentially creating some problems if
misused, has undoubtedly made modern life much better when compared to
the past. (307 words)
It is observed that in many countries not enough students are choosing to study
science subjects. What are the causes? What are the effects on society?
It is true that there is a lack of students majoring in science-related fields. This could be
attributed to a number of factors, and it could affect humans’ quality of life and the
economy of a country.
Reasons for the shift away from science subjects among students vary from country to
country. In developed nations, science has already been prioritized for over a century,
which has evidently produced an abundance of people working in this field. This surplus
renders this domain fiercely competitive, thereby discouraging youngsters from
choosing to study it. On the other hand, in underdeveloped and developing nations, it
would arguably be wiser for governments to invest in the tourism sector, which yields
immediate results. The development of this industry has attracted a large proportion of
young people, which clearly explains the dearth of students majoring in science in these
countries.
The lack of science students could potentially have stultifying effects on the economy of
a nation and human health. Research has shown that productivity can only be improved
if innovations are made or new technologies are invented. It naturally follows that the
corollary of the dearth of science majors would be fewer innovations, and this would
perhaps hinder the economic progress of a society. Furthermore, humans are still
suffering from countless debilitating health problems that are presently incurable, and
we can only hope that scientific breakthroughs can be made to solve them. Therefore,
the move away from science education would prolong the suffering of ill people.
In conclusion, the shift away from science education can be ascribed to the high level of
competition within the field in developed countries and more attractive job opportunities
in third-world countries. This development is deeply troubling as it would fail to enhance
people’s well-being and retard economic growth in the long run. (304 words)
Nowadays celebrities earn more money than politicians. What are the reasons for
this? Is it a positive or negative development?
It is certainly true that talented singers, actors and sportspeople often have a large
following, and so do politicians due to their influence on normal people’s lives. However,
the glaringly enormous income gap between these cohorts is deeply troubling and
indeed warrants serious discussion.
At root of the income disparity between celebrities and politicians is arguably the nature
of their jobs. Famous individuals focus almost entirely on satisfying their fans, and the
better they do this, the more money they receive. Naturally, they enjoy untrammelled
streams of income from their main profession, and from endorsing certain products on
their platforms. For example, Christiano Ronaldo charges 2 million dollars for an
endorsement post on his Facebook account, which has over a hundred million followers.
Renowned politicians like Barrack Obama also have tens of millions of followers, but
people would be appalled if he started selling merchandises on his Twitter account.
This yearning chasm between famous people and politicians in terms of earnings may
have indelible negative impact on society. What can be inferred from this gap is that
politics is not worth pursuing. To illustrate, a senator’s salary is utterly meager relative to
what celebrities earn and may only allow him or her an austere lifestyle. This could, by
extension, lead to a dearth of people pursuing a career in politics and would foster
unhealthy admiration for celebrities’ glamorous lifestyles. While the former consequence
would cause the government to be less effective, the latter would promote the
materialistic culture.
In conclusion, what lies at the core of the huge difference between famous individuals
and politicians is the social stigmatization imposed on the latter regarding their riches
and the way they make money. This phenomenon may attenuate people’s interest in
having a career in politics and promote a materialistic mentality. (305 words)
Scientists predict in the near future cars will be driven by computers, not people.
Why? Do you think it is a positive or negative development?
With many breakthroughs in the field of artificial intelligence, the scenario where cars
could drive themselves is no longer something out of a science-fiction novel. I believe
that this is a positive development overall, and I will explain why.
There are an array of factors leading scientists to believe that self-driving cars will soon
become a reality. Firstly, a range of similar AI technologies such as robot vacuums and
autopilot modes in planes have already been introduced, and infrastructure facilitating
the use of driverless cars is already underway in major cities such as Los Angeles and
New York. More importantly, leading AI technology companies in the US have already
received the government go-ahead, as seen in recent tax cuts for this sector. Finally,
ride-hailing companies like Uber have announced that by 2025 they will have had half of
their cars replaced by autonomous ones.
Although driverless cars could terminate a large number of driving jobs, this technology
will benefit the environment and individuals. On an environmental level, self-driving cars
tend to run on clean energy such as solar power, so the replacement of fossil-based
vehicles would assist in curbing air pollution. Furthermore, it is true that most people
choose to live in city centers so that they do not have to drive a long distance to their
workplace or school. Therefore, the introduction of self-driving cars would encourage
them to reside in suburban areas because they could catch up on their sleep or relax in
their cars instead of focusing on the road. This would, by extension, reduce real estate
prices, which would be a clear benefit for individuals.
In conclusion, the advent of autonomous cars would be greatly beneficial, on personal
and environmental. (284 words)
In schools and universities, girls tend to choose arts while boys like science. What
are the reasons for this trend and do you think this tendency should be changed?
It is observed that female students often major in arts, while their male counterparts are
more inclined to choose science disciplines. This trend probably stems from the fact that
each gender, by nature, cares about different aspects, and it is wrong to change this
pattern because they opt for a certain major out of their own volition and their decision
should be respected.
There is a large body of empirical evidence suggesting that differences in choices of
academic pursuit can be attributed to human nature. For example, girls tend to be more
interested in people and feelings rather than things around them, hence passions for arts.
By contrast, statistics suggest that most young boys are naturally curious about objects
and the nature of phenomena around them rather than how someone feels. This
predisposition manifests itself in boys’ interest in science subjects.
The fact that males tend to dominate science domains, while females do so in arts
majors should not be changed for several reasons. Firstly, children often choose their
major of study based on their passions or strengths, so their choice most certainly
matches their personality and innate talent. Secondly, trying to meddle with someone’s
choice because of their gender is fundamentally sexist, and utterly pointless: there is
absolutely no benefit whatsoever if a boy who is keen on the scientific side of things is
persuaded to pursue a singing or acting career.
In conclusion, each gender seems to naturally take interests in different aspects of life,
and they should be allowed to do so. (257 words)
The range of technology available to people is increasing the gap between the rich
and the poor. Others think it has an opposite effect. Discuss both views and give
your opinions.
Opinions are divided on whether the increasing range of technological devices available
is widening or narrowing the gap between rich and poor. I believe that thanks to the
availability of modern technologies, the less well-off population now can enjoy a close
semblance of most of what used be the prerogative of the wealthy.
Admittedly, due to technological advancements, a large number of products are only
made for the wealthy. For example, the latest model of an iPhone, which often boasts
innovative features and a stylish design, costs shy of $2000, which is possibly equivalent
to numerous people’s yearly income. Similarly, advancements in space technology have
allowed people to travel into space, but such a trip would cost over $200.000. This is
surely unaffordable for the vast majority of the human population. These examples bear
witness to how many items are specifically not created to serve people in low-income
brackets.
However, for almost every item produced to serve the wealthy only, there are always a
range of items that have similar functions and are affordable for people from other
economic classes. One can easily purchase a smartphone with $100, and it has an
almost identical range of functions. Similarly, although affluent people can enjoy a trip
into space, the advent of virtual reality allows less well-off people to experience what it is
like to be in a weightless environment and admire the vastness of the universe. Thus,
people from lower income bands do have access to technologies that are similar to
those exclusively made for the rich, making it clear that technology is closing the gap
between social classes.
In conclusion, the increasing availability of technology has certainly helped in bridging
the gap between the rich and the poor, as clearly shown in the examples in the
preceding paragraphs. (300 words)
Some people say history is one the most important school subjects. Other people
think that, in today’s world, subjects like science and technology are more
important than history. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Opinions are divided on how important history is when compared to other subjects like
science and technology. I believe that it is not possible to draw a definitive line between
the importance of each subject because they benefit students and the country in their
own ways.
Given the ever-globalized world we are living in, without history lessons, young people
may develop no attachment to their home country. Also, they might fail to distinguish
facts from fiction or disinformation and could therefore be be manipulated. For example,
after watching the Vietnam War on Netflix, some might think that there was a civil war
between the North and the South. In fact, though, the government in the North simply
wanted to re-unite the country, which was undoubtably a very noble goal. However,
these dreadful problems could be preemptively addressed by the teaching of history
rather than subjects such as science and technology.
However, science and technology subjects enhance children’s employability skills in
ways that history cannot. This can be seen in how most majors in higher education
require applicants to have performed well in science subjects at high school.
Furthermore, with the ability to work well with numbers, modern gadgets and software,
one is suitable to undertake many different jobs such as accountant, shop assistant or
librarian, among many others. In this respect, history is only relevant for people who
aspire to become philosophers, history teachers or historians.
In conclusion, history and subjects such as science and technology benefit young
people and the country differently. Therefore, it would be impossible to reach a firm
conclusion on which area of knowledge is more important. (273 words)
These days, more and more schools focus on science and social science subjects
and choose not to teach children to sing, paint, sculpt, write creatively or dance.
Should school-children study the arts?
It is undoubtedly true that one of schools’ primary roles is to provide a sufficient supply
of manpower for industries. They, as a result, are pressured into or are deliberately
focusing on science subjects to fulfill this duty. However, I firmly believe that
schoolchildren should also be given the opportunity to dabble in the arts.
Firstly, children who take lessons in painting, sculpting or writing tend to be more
creative and patient. This is because they usually need to tap into their imagination to
create or portray something, which has been scientifically proven to boost their creative
thinking. Obviously, their enhanced creativity would greatly benefit them in the modern
workplace, where the ability to think creatively would help them thrive in the face of the
encroachment of automation. In addition, it often takes much time to make a painting or
a sculpture or write a poem. This helps them build patience, which is an important virtue
that every one should possess.
In my view, enrolling children in arts classes has further emotional and social benefits.
Firstly, not every child is capable of or willing to talk to someone about their emotions.
Therefore, children who study the arts learn to express their feelings through different
means, and this could benefit them emotionally. Not only this, those taking lessons in
the arts out of passion tend to take great pleasure in doing it, and therefore the arts can
be a means of relaxation after stressful school hours. Finally, they can make friends with
people who share their interests and passions, which surely benefits them socially.
In conclusion, teaching children about the arts can help them to foster creativity and
patience and provide them with different ways to express themselves, relax and widen
their social circle. (294 words)
In today’s world of advanced science and technology, we still greatly value our
artists such as musicians, painters and writers. What can arts tell us about life that
science and technology cannot?
It is true that science can successfully explain the nature of many phenomena
happening around us. However, other aspects of human life including human feelings
are better illustrated in the form of arts.
To begin with, human feelings still leave scientists a large number of questions to be
answered. For example, the response of brain to nervousness and excitedness is
exactly the same. Thus, even an MRI scanner, which could detail how our brain
responds to external and internal cues, will show the same results for those two feelings,
thereby failing to tell what a person is viscerally going through. A song, on the other hand,
could deliver the unique feelings of the composer to the extent that there are now over 2
billion songs written about love, but they tell very different stories and shades of feelings.
Similarly, psychoanalysts, philosophers, and scientists alike are still struggling to provide
possible answers to metaphysical questions like what constitutes happiness. In
scientific terms, there are certainly some preconditions to happiness such as personal
achievements, material possessions and relationships. However, there are highly
respected people who have risen to the position of power, possessed an imaginable
amount of wealth and had a good marriage life, but still feel miserable to the point of
suicide. This, scientifically, does not make much sense, but many writers, composers
and painters have successfully portrayed such people’s misery. This can be seen in how
Billy Eillish described her loneliness underneath her glamour and success in her song
“When the party is over”.
In conclusion, even the most erudite scientists are still baffled by questions pertaining to
human feelings, which could be reasonably depicted in many different forms of arts.
(286 words)
Some people think that introducing new technology can improve people’s quality
of life in developing countries. However, others believe that free education should
be offered. Discuss both views and give your opinion?
Opinions are divided on whether modern technologies or free education should be
provided for people in developing nations so that their life could be improved. I believe
that both approaches should be adopted at the same time because the former would
yield immediate results, while the latter could have a long-lasting effect.
On the one hand, the provision of new technology could surely enhance people’s quality
of life in poor countries. For example, with the adoption of advanced farming techniques,
crop yields would significantly increase. This can be seen in southern parts of Vietnam,
where farmers used to harvest crops by hand, and suffer from droughts and pests. After
the adoption of more advanced technologies like pesticides, effective irrigation systems
and machinery, they were liberated and began to enjoy the abundance of food supplies.
Certainly, had it not been for new technologies, Vietnamese farmers would have
struggled to improve their quality of life.
On the other hand, offering education for citizens in economically disadvantaged parts
of the world would have long-term benefits. Chief of these is that this measure would
allow more people to be properly educated, which would result in a better educated and
consequently more productive workforce. Higher productivity would in turn lead to
economic growth, which is accompanied by increased living standards for everyone.
Furthermore, better educated parents are repeatedly proven to be better at raising
children, for example by adopting more nutritious diets or enlightened child-rearing
practices. In other words, the economic and individual benefits mentioned above can be
perpetuated.
In conclusion, while the introduction of new technologies could beget immediate
benefits, the impact of the provision of free education could reverberate through
generations. Therefore, both initiatives should be taken in order to help inhabitants of
less well-off countries. (295 words)
It is a natural process for animal species to become extinct. There is no reason
why people should try to prevent this from happening. Do you agree or disagree?
Many people point to natural selection where the extinction of certain animals is
inevitable as the reason why trying to prevent this from happening is largely pointless. In
this essay, however, I will challenge this school of thought.
Firstly, it is not an exaggeration to say that allowing animals to go extinct is tantamount
to paving the way for our own extinction. For example, Australian bees have
disappeared in the North of this country due to unregulated harmful farming activities,
leading to a large number of other plants and animals disappearing along with them. As
a result, farmers in this part of Australia can no longer grow crops because of sudden
climatic changes caused by this unfortunate incident. Therefore, it is reasonable to say
that were we to turn a blind eye to such events, we would soon face the demise of our
own race.
Of course, one might argue that only the disappearance of keystone animals such as
bees could cause such drastic changes. Thus, it can be said that we should only protect
such animal species rather than other animals. However, given the interconnected
nature of the ecosystem, the extinction of any animal could lead keystone animals like
bees to die out, causing mass extinction and by extension threatening the existence of
our own kind. Added to this is the cost-effectiveness of protecting wildlife. The amount
of money and manpower needed to address the resulting changes to our own habitat
caused by the extinction of certain animals would far outweigh the costs of animal
protection.
In conclusion, it is a mistake to assume that there is no point in trying to save wild
animals from dying out. This is because preserving other animals is a cost-effective
measure that could give us a fighting chance to ensure the very existence of mankind.
(303 words)
Some people say that too much attention and too many resources are given in the
protection of wild animals and birds. Do you agree or disagree?
Some people believe that we are paying too much attention to and spending too much
money on protecting wild animals. In this essay, however, I will challenge this school of
thought.
Firstly, the amount of attention that we are paying to wildlife is far from enough. In my
view, only a tiny proportion of the human population reads or watches news about how
much damage humankind has done to the environment. This is because knowing about
what is trendy rather than serious environmental problems makes people become
‘relevant’ when they discuss with their friends and colleagues. Furthermore, people now
are occupied by a huge amount of workload when they are at school or at the workplace
and an abundance of entertainment choices when they come home. This leaves little
time for learning about what is going on in the natural world. Hence, it is sensible to
conclude that even more attention should be directed to preserving wild animals.
It is also unreasonable to say that too much money is being spent on the protection of
wildlife as it also ensures the survival of our own kind. This is because the extinction of
some keystone animals would cause mass extinctions, and threaten our very own
existence. For example, Australian bees have disappeared in the North of this country
due to unregulated harmful farming activities, leading to a large number of other plants
and animals disappearing along with them. As a result, farmers in this part of Australia
can no longer grow crops because of sudden climatic changes caused by this
unfortunate incident. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that were we to turn a blind eye to
such events, we would soon face the demise of our own race.
In conclusion, it is a mistake to assume that the amount of attention, manpower and
money being directed towards the protection of wildlife is too much.
(316 words)
Climate change is a phenomenon that affects countries all over the world. Many
people strongly believe that it is the responsibility of individuals, rather than
corporations and governments, to deal with this problem.
To what extent do you agree?
It is true that climate change presents a challenge to us all. However, I strongly disagree
that the responsibility to mitigate it falls only on individuals’ shoulders, as I will explain
now.
Firstly, private citizens cannot effect large-scale changes in the way that the government
in conjunction with corporations do. Any environmental project is likely to require a
monumental amount of money and manpower that no individual alone can provide. For
example, under the aegis of the Indian government, a nationwide environmental
campaign in this country was launched. Thanks to this effort, over 66 million trees were
planted to battle climate change, and it involved over 1.5 million people and thousands
of environmentalists. The sheer number of trees or people needed for this to work is
indeed so overwhelming that no one would think that it could ever be done by any
individual alone.
Of course, people can try to become more energy-efficient, reuse plastic bags and
recycle more. However, these actions cannot bring about any discernible changes to the
environment, if not done on a collective level - which is highly unlikely due to people’s
hesitance to change their lifestyles. The government, on the other hand, can enact laws
requiring both individuals and large corporations to abide by certain restrictions,
resulting in immediate large-scale changes. Large companies, in addition, can also
contribute greatly in the cause of environmental protection by reducing the amount of
packaging they put on their products, or by using recycled materials instead of virgin
ones in their course of production.
In conclusion, governments, corporations and individuals all need to shoulder their fair
share of responsibility in the fight against climate change.
(279 words)
The amount of rubbish in our world is increasing at a rapid rate. Why is this
happening? What can be done to reduce it?
It is true that countries around the world are rife with bags, plastic bottles and rubbish.
This state of affairs can be attributed to several reasons, and some viable solutions that
can be adopted to alleviate the situation will be outlined in this essay.
Three main factors are to blame for the increasing waste production worldwide. Firstly,
the pervasive presence of advertising can create a growing demand for consumer goods,
and as a result, greater amounts of waste will be produced through production and
consumption of goods. To make matters worse, more plastic bags and containers are
being used more than ever because of the arrival of food delivery services. Finally, the
next possible contributor to our planet being strewn with waste is the low rates of
recycling. In most countries, many manufacturers gravitate towards virgin materials,
which are often cheaper than recyclable ones, in the course of production.
To address the piling up of waste, it should be, first and foremost, brought to the fore
and then it can be tackled by education. With regard to making the problem known to
the public, this can be done by mounting an international awareness campaign about
the dangers of over-consumption and the environmental problems posed by waste.
Celebrities who are trusted by the public can also help spread the message. As for
education, schoolchildren should be educated about how to reduce, reuse and recycle.
Since these young people will grow up and act as role models to their children, the
impact of such an initiative will reverberate through generations to come.
In conclusion, the unimaginable amount of waste produced worldwide can be ascribed
to advertising, food shipping services and low rates of recycling, and the solutions would
lie in awareness-raising campaigns, the participation of high-profile public figures and
education.
(298 words)
The natural resources such as oil, forests and fresh water are being consumed at
an alarming rate.
What problems does it cause? How can we solve these problems?
It is true that the planet’s resources are being depleted at a staggering rate. This can
lead to several problems, and this essay will suggest some viable measures to remedy
the situation.
Two main problems can arise from the acceleration of the depletion of natural resources.
Firstly, the environment will be adversely affected. Take, for example, forests, which can
absorb carbon dioxide, produce oxygen and stabilize the earth. Deforestation is
disrupting this vital system, and this, coupled with the increasing levels of greenhouse
gases from burning fossil fuels is accelerating the process of climate change. As well as
this, drinking water is being steadily lost due to the fact that most companies do not
treat their waste properly before discharging it into rivers and the ocean, contaminating
water sources. This spells disaster for lives of all plants and animals on earth and
humans alike.
To address these problems, they should be, first and foremost, brought to the fore. This
can be done by mounting a global awareness campaign about the dangers of
consuming the planet’s resources in a reckless manner, and celebrities who are trusted
by the public can also help spread the message. Perhaps, a long-term solution is to
educate young people about how to be more energy-efficient so that the next generation
will not take drinking water, forests and fossil fuels for granted. Since these young
people will grow up and act as role models to their children, the impact of such an
initiative will reverberate through generations to come.
In conclusion, the planet being depleted at an alarming pace can exacerbate the
problem of climate change and the loss of drinking water, and the solutions would lie in
awareness-raising campaigns, the participation of celebrities and education.
(293 words)
As artificial intelligence advances and becomes a common part of everyday life,
some people worry that computerized systems will make many jobs obsolete.
Some even worry that AI will eventually do this to teachers and take over their
children’s and grandchildren’s classrooms.
Do you think a computer can replace a human teacher?
Given recent groundbreaking breakthroughs in AI technology, some people believe that
AI will even permeate future classrooms where the presence of teachers will no longer
be needed. Personally, I disagree with this school of thought for several reasons.
One might argue that the role of a teacher in traditional classrooms is fundamentally
about transferring knowledge to learners, which could technically be done more
effectively by AI teachers. This is because AI teachers’ knowledge would be invariably
superior to that of their human counterparts. However, this line of reasoning fails to
factor in the fact that lessons given by AI teachers would be boring and clinical, almost
certainly causing young people to lose interest in learning. Human teachers, on the other
hand, have the ability to recognize how their students feel towards their lessons and
make quick adjustments to their teaching plans to keep learners engaged.
To add further credence to my assertion, I note the frightening scenario where AI
teachers could take over classrooms successfully. This would mean that they would
have the ability to recognize children’s emotions, appeal to their feelings and deal with
children’s unpredictable behaviors, all of which are integral in the teaching job. This
would mean that AI teachers could make decisions by themselves regarding what
course of action should be taken to deal with a misbehaved child. Some punishments
that are thought to be necessary and suitable by AI teachers might turn out to be
morally wrong or even outright dangerous.
In conclusion, human teachers would never be replaced by robots because lessons
delivered by AI teachers would fail to arouse students’ interest, and it would be
dangerous to let AI teachers take complete control of the classroom.
(289 words)
Developments in technology have brought various environmental problems. Some
believe that people need to live simpler lives to solve such problems. Others,
however, believe technology is the way to solve these problems.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
There is a large body of evidence suggesting that technological advances have harmed
the environment in various ways. In order to preserve the Earth as we know it, some
people propose that we should lead simpler lives and consume less energy. However, I
agree with those saying that only technological advancements could holistically solve
those problems.
Admittedly, one might argue that by changing our lifestyles, we could effect positive
changes to the environment. This argument presupposes that that we could all cut back
on the use of plastic bags, straws and packaging, and avoid making extraneous trips to
reduce our carbon footprint. However, this line of reasoning is not sound because
alternatives to plastic bags could cause more harm than good, as seen in the way
alternative products made of wood or wool could lead to deforestation or severely
contaminate drinking water respectively. Similarly, asking people to travel less would be
decidedly difficult, nay, impossible because it could violate their freedom of choice, and
deciding which trip is unnecessary would also be entirely problematic.
In my view, only by developing new technologies could we deal with the problems
created by existing technologies. For example, many leading scientists in the field of
energy predicted that by the year 2030, solar energy will have become even cheaper
than fossil fuels. This makes it possible for us to sustain our current lifestyles, while
reducing our carbon footprint. Also, plastic bags, though rife with problems, are
currently our optimal choice, so not until an invention comes along to replace them
could we hope to terminate the use of such an item.
In conclusion, although there are reasons to say that we should lead a simpler lifestyle
for the sake of the environment, it would be wiser to develop more advanced
technologies to resolve existing environmental problems.
(302 words)
There are more workers who work from home and more students who study from
home. This is because computer technology is more and more easily accessible
and cheaper. Do you think it is a positive or negative development?
The increasing affordability of modern technologies such as computers and
smartphones has facilitated teleworking and virtual learning. Naturally, there has been a
progressive increase in the number of remote workers and learners in many parts of the
world. The shift towards working and studying from home, albeit potentially causing
some problems, has been tremendously positive.
Admittedly, the drawbacks of remote working and learning are evident. Firstly,
teleworkers are more susceptible to psychological problems such as boredom and
depression, due to the lack of face-to-face interaction. Furthermore, adults who opt for
working from home for childcare or eldercare reasons tend to find it hard to concentrate
on their work, hence lower productivity. Similar challenges are also found in
internet-based learning. There is inevitably less direct interaction between students and
students and between students and teachers. These factors may negatively affect
students’ motivation to study and their understanding of their lessons, arguably leading
to lower academic results.
Despite the negatives mentioned above, the trend towards learning and working
remotely is a welcome development for a variety of reasons. On an individual level, while
distant learners can study whenever and wherever is convenient, teleworkers can still
take care of their children or elderly members and earn money at the same time. They
also have complete freedom to design their learning and working environment to best
suit their personal preferences and needs, thereby enhancing their productivity and
creativity. On a business level, institutions and companies allowing distant learning and
remote working can reduce operating costs in the form of fewer classrooms and offices,
and lower electricity bills.
In conclusion, the trend towards studying or working from home is a positive one overall.
This is provided that virtual learners and teleworkers eliminate possible
distractions at home and socialize with their friends and family so that their
productivity and mental health are not affected. (309 words)
Space travel has been possible for some time and some people believe that space
tourism could be developed in the future.
Do you think it is a positive or negative development.
It is true that traveling into space is no longer something out of a science fiction novel,
and the development of space tourism is still in its infant stages. While I acknowledge
the potential benefits of this form of tourism, I believe it to be an unwelcome
development.
One might argue that while going deep into space, space travelers have the opportunity
to experience weightlessness, admire the vastness of the universe and watch the Earth
from afar. However, these experiences are achievable without having to make a trip into
space. For example, by spending a fraction of the price of a ticket into space, one can
experience what it is like to be in a weightless environment in some advanced
entertainment facilities. Similarly, given the development of virtual reality technologies,
one is now allowed to ‘venture’ into space, and ‘see’ the surface of the moon or Mars
without actually having to travel there.
Another negative ramification of space tourism is related to space garbage in the form of
used-up fuel tanks and discarded parts of spaceships. The failure to comprehend the
seriousness of this problem would result in countless chunks of metal space debris
flying around the Earth, preventing further exploration into space. Also, there is no
guarantee that discarded parts of spaceships would not hit vital satellites or fall back
into the earth. While the former would disrupt communication, the latter would be as
cataclysmic as a small meteor shower. As these risks are too big for humans to afford,
the benefits of developing space tourism are simply not justified.
In conclusion, although the benefits of space travel on an individual level are clear, they
pale in comparison with its problems.
(286 words)
In the future, it seems more difficult to live on the Earth. Some people think more
money should be spent on researching other planets to live, such as Mars. To what
extent do you agree or disagree?
Some believe that more resources should be allocated to space exploration in order to
find an alternative planet for mankind. However, in this essay I will challenge this school
of thought.
One might argue that it is necessary to spend more money on research into making
other planets inhabitable. This is predicated on the assumption that the process of
global warming has passed the point where it could ever be reversed, spelling disaster
for all lives on Earth. According to this theory, colonizing another planet such as Mars
would be the only key to the survival of the human race. However, this line of reasoning
is not sound as it does not factor the impracticality of such a venture into the equation.
As a rocket that could send three astronauts into space costs around 200 million dollars,
building enough spaceships to move a part of the human population to live on another
planet would simply be impossible.
It is also unnecessary to invest in space exploration. Consider Bill Gates, who has
funded many projects addressing the energy predicament, which is the root cause of
global warming. Recently, he and his team have reported substantial progress in
exploiting nuclear power, a clean but previously perceived as an unstable source of
electricity. They have also introduced a device that could concentrate solar energy to
melt most commonly used metals, which can help reduce the amount of CO2 emitted
from this process. Thus, if more money were used to subsidize innovative ideas, we
could still make the Earth inhabitable for generations to come.
In conclusion, besides the impracticality of colonizing other planets, many ideas that can
change our habitat for the better are regrettably underfunded, rendering space
exploration utterly unnecessary.
(287 words)
Nowadays because of digital technology it is possible for not only studios but also
individuals to produce their own films.
Do you think this is a positive or negative development?
It is true that technological advances have enabled individuals to make their own films. I
believe that this trend is a very positive one.
On an individual level, we need to factor in the viewing options that the this development
offers viewers. Previously, making films was a reserve for only film companies, and so
film-lovers were restricted to a small pool of films on TV or in the cinema. Nowadays, the
proliferation of sitcoms, short films and parodies made by amateur film producers on
social media sites like Facebook and Youtube allows internet users to watch as much as
they wish. In addition, the increasing popularity of these works can certainly be
monetized in the form of advertising for certain products. This possibility encourages
lots of people to dabble in acting and movie-directing.
To add further credence to my assertion, I note the fact that being allowed to make their
own films, film creators can now express their creativity and ideas beyond conventional
limits. As arts are largely subjective, this will be a step forward in the film making industry.
For example, with only an ipad and a simple movie editing software, 1977 Vlog, a group
of young creative producers, made parodies of famous Vietnamese pieces of literature
to voice their opinion about existing problems in their community. Despite being
ridiculed based on the standards contemporarily applied in the film industry, their works
have quickly gained popularity, challenged the status quo and completely revolutionized
the way films are generally perceived and made.
In conclusion, the fact that individuals can now produce their own films is certainly a
welcome development for movie-lovers, movie creators and the movie industry as a
whole.
(280 words)
Scientific research should be carried out and controlled by governments rather
than private companies. Do you agree or disagree?
Although our life has been revolutionized by countless inventions and innovations that
have been made by private companies or individuals, some people maintain that
scientific research should only be conducted by governmental entities. In this essay, I
will challenge this school of thought.
Firstly, we need to factor in the government’s decisions regarding what types of
research should take priority. In my view, if the government prioritized weaponry
research over healthcare or education-related programs, its citizens would suffer from
preventable diseases or woefully die of hunger. This can be seen in North Korea, whose
military budget accounts for a majority of taxpayers’ money. As a result of the
government allocating funds from healthcare and education to the military sector,
citizens in this country are poorly educated and receive poor healthcare. This example
sheds light on why overcontrol of governments on scientific research would be very risky
and counterproductive.
To add further credence to my assertion, I note the profound impact of non-
governmental research on our lives over recent centuries. An example that aptly
illustrates my view is that of electricity, arguably the most important invention throughout
the history of mankind. Electricity was discovered by Benjamin Franklin, who was
working as an independent researcher at the time. Undoubtedly, if he had not been
allowed to carry out research on this type of energy, there is no guarantee that it would
have ever been found and humankind would ever achieve this level of development.
In conclusion, it would be wrong to assume that governments should have total control
over whether certain scientific projects should be carried out or not. This is because
governmental interference in the world of science is fraught with peril, and lots of
life-changing inventions were made by either individuals or private firms rather than
state-run ones.
(302 words)
Some people think that shops should not be allowed to sell food or drink that has
been scientifically proved to be bad for people's health.
Do you agree or disagree?
Some medical experts and nutritionists believe that unhealthy food should not be
allowed in stores. In this essay, however, I will challenge this school of thought.
Firstly, deciding which food to ban would be tricky. For example, it is still a moot point
whether eating meat is beneficial or harmful to the human body. Some healthcare
experts are pushing the narrative that humans are supposed to eat vegetables given the
resemblance of the structure of our jaw to plant-eating animals’. Many other experts
think otherwise, saying that meat provides us with a good source of protein and some
crucial vitamins and minerals that are simply not found in vegetables.
Other reasons to totally reject the ban on fast food are related to the unaffordability of
healthier food to a large proportion of people and the nature of today’s jobs. With regard
to the former, statistics suggest that the majority of fast food eaters are from low-income
brackets. This means that they could not afford to eat more fresh fruits, vegetables and
other more nutritious types of food, which generally cost significantly more than a meal
at McDonald’s or KFC. In addition to this, with hectic schedules and heavy workloads,
many people cannot get enough sleep, let alone spend an hour every day cooking
healthy food for themselves. For them, fast food seems to be their only choice.
In conclusion, it would be decidedly difficult to decide which food should be prohibited
given conflicting scientific findings regarding what is healthy and what is not.
Furthermore, such a ban would likely compound many people’s daily struggles given
their busy schedules and financial hardship.
(270 words)
Scientists generally agree that the consumption of junk food is detrimental to
health. Some people believe that the answer to this problem is education. Others
disagree, saying that it will not work.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Despite warnings by healthcare experts and scientists, the consumption of junk food
has been on the rise in many parts of the world. Many posit education as the panacea
for this problem, while others say that such a measure would not yield results and I
agree.
Granted, one might argue that education is efficacious in curbing the consumption of
junk food. This argument presupposes that fast food eaters are simply not aware of the
health risks associated with their dietary choices. So the argument goes, if they were
better informed about how susceptible they are to diet-related problems such as obesity
and cardiovascular diseases, they would avoid eating fast food altogether. However, this
line of reasoning is not grounded in facts as most people are already well aware of the
dangers of consuming fast food. The real problem here is that they could afford more
nutritious food, which generally costs significantly more than a meal at McDonald’s or
KFC.
There are other reasons to question the efficacy of education. Firstly, most working
people, even those in the field of healthcare themselves, find it increasingly difficult to
spare time to cook a meal for themselves and their families due to their hectic schedules.
As a result, they have to resort to readily-made meals or processed food, while their
children are left to eat at will. These youngsters’ obvious choice is fast food because of
its tastiness and convenience. Furthermore, the impact of awareness- raising campaigns
to exhort people to change their eating habits would pale in comparison with that of the
overwhelming number of adverts for junk food.
In conclusion, placing education at the core of measures to deal with the high
consumption of junk food would be an unwise course of action due to financial and
lifestyle-related factors and the ubiquity of advertising for such food.
(308 words)
Many people find it difficult to live a healthy life. What are the difficulties they face?
What can these people do to become healthier?
It is true that living a healthy life is becoming increasingly difficult. This state of affairs
can be attributed to several factors, and there are some steps that people need to take
to be healthier.
There are two main difficulties facing people who want to lead a healthy lifestyle. The
most important is that in light of the fast pace of modern life, we tend to pay scant
attention to our diets. Many householders, for example, now sporadically go to the
market to buy fresh and nutritious produce, and resort to processed food and
ready-made meals, which are arguably unhealthy. Added to this is the excessive use of
technological devices. Many youngsters, in particular, have become addicted to their
screens, and so instead of going outside and enjoying physical activity with their friends
and schoolmates, they spend their entire day on the sofa, staring at their tiny screens.
We can improve our well-being in a number of ways. The key step is to cut down on
takeaways and processed food and double the amount of fresh fruit and vegetables we
consume. Such a change allows us to obtain enough vital vitamins and minerals that are
a prerequisite for a healthy body and mind. Furthermore, everyone should spare some
time for gentle exercise: a brisk twenty-minute walk each day can considerably improve
a person’s fitness. Finally, those with a hectic lifestyle need to learn to manage their time
so that they can get enough sleep, cook for themselves, do yoga and meditate to have a
healthy mind and body.
In conclusion, the fact that many people find it increasingly difficult to lead a healthy
lifestyle can be ascribed to their hectic lives and the abuse of technological devices. The
solutions would lie in individuals trying to eat healthily, taking up exercise, and managing
their time more effectively.
(308 words)
In Britain, when someone gets old they often go to live in a home with other old
people where there are nurses to look after them. Sometimes the government has
to pay for this care.
Who do you think should pay for this care, the government or the family?
Some elderly people are fortunate enough to have savings to pay for their healthcare
costs, but many others have to rely on either family members or the government. This
situation has ratcheted up public interest in who should be in charge of elderly people’s
medical and care expenses.
Admittedly, there are good reasons to say that the government should cover the medical
costs of elderly people. Chief of these is that since these people have given the
government taxes all their lives, when they are old and infirm, it only seems fair that their
healthcare costs are covered by the state. In addition, if the government does not pay,
then the bill is left with the family, and most people simply cannot afford this on top of
their normal bills. As a result, many old people may not receive the medical care that
they need.
However, it can be argued that aged care costs must be met by senior citizens or their
relatives. Clearly, if the government funded the entire elderly population's care, this
would put tremendous pressure on the national healthcare budget. As the government
would have to reallocate funds from other important areas to meet the colossal costs
incurred, this would perhaps upset the equilibrium of the country’s economy.
Overall, I feel that the idea of the government fully covering the costs of eldercare for all
old people would be financially problematic and should not be adopted. However, in
my opinion, childless elderly whose living relatives are unable to or unwilling to
take care of them should be entitled to free age care in geriatric homes. This way,
the incurred costs would not affect the economy of the country, while these old
people can enjoy their retirement life without monetary worries.
(297 words)
Some people think that children should begin their formal education at a very early
age. Some think they should begin at least 7 years old. Discuss both views give
opinions.
Opinions are divided on when a child should start receiving formal schooling. Although
some champion the idea of children starting school at a very young age, I agree with
those who believe that such a proposal would probably do more harm than good.
Admittedly, there are reasons to say that giving six-year-olds and under formal
schooling is beneficial to them. Chief of these is that since young children’s ability to
learn is almost infinite, exploiting it early on could enhance their cognitive and intellectual
development. This would enable them to absorb advanced knowledge more easily and
become more successful later in life. In addition, insomuch as every formal educational
setting has certain rules in place, children would learn to obey them and become more
mature. This would not only ease the burden on parents but also helps young people
foster important characters early.
However, there are stronger reasons to argue that waiting until they are older is a more
sensible course of action. The key argument is that social skills, such as communication
ones, and the ability to recognize and appeal to others’ emotions, are repeatedly proven
to contribute more to the likelihood of one being successful. These skills are best
developed by letting young children spend their early years with their friends and parents
rather than by forcing them to learn subjects like arithmetic. Furthermore, one can
imagine how difficult it would be for a 5-year-old child to spend an hour every day
preparing for his lessons the next day or doing his homework. Chances are that he
would fail to cope with the stress, resulting in him developing a negative attitude towards
studying.
In conclusion, I believe that not until the age of 7 should young children be taught
formally; if anything, it would potentially be counter-productive.
(302 words)
Some schools make all students wear uniforms, while other schools allow the
students to choose what they wear.
Which approach do you think is better for students’ overall development? Why?
Over the last decades, the adoption of uniforms has received a crescendo of both
criticism and support. Although allowing children to wear whatever they like can be
beneficial to a certain extent, I believe that it is in young people’s best interests that
uniforms should be mandatory.
Granted, one might argue that schools should allow children to dress as they please.
This is predicated on the assumption that by permitting children to dress freely, schools
can give them a taste of adult social reality, where competition is often judged by
material standards. Such exposure is often argued to be a preparation of what awaits
them in modern society. However, this line of reasoning is not sound because it
condones and perpetuates unhealthy rivalry among people. There is more to life than
having material possessions, and this is unequivocally the attitude that schools should
foster in children instead of promoting social competition between them.
There are other reasons to extol the idea of making uniforms compulsory. The key
reason is that uniforms create an atmosphere of academic where students can stand out
not by the labels on their shirts, but by the scores they achieve on tests. In fact,
institutions requiring uniforms experience fewer incidents of bullying, and generally
boast superior overall academic performance. Furthermore, uniforms remind youngsters
of their top priority: their studies. This, coupled with the fact that many students take
pride in wearing their school uniform, will encourage them to study more earnestly,
further propelling overall academic gains.
In conclusion, for the reasons outlined above, it stands to reason that uniforms can
assist in forming a positive learning environment from which schoolchildren benefit
academically.
(275 words)
Some people think that schools should reward students with the best academic
results, while others believe it is more important to reward students who show
improvements.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Schools have always tried to incentivize their students to study harder. Although this can
be achieved by rewarding students who excel in their studies, I believe that those who
make progress should also be rewarded.
Admittedly, there are justifiable reasons to believe that elite students should be
rewarded exclusively. Chief of these is that since they have diligently applied themselves
to their studies, they deserve the praises and privileges. This may encourage these
students and others to study harder to win the rewards, propelling overall academic
gains. Added to this is the fact that this kind of competition is seen in almost every
aspect of life where only the best individuals are rewarded. If students are used to this
reality and thrive in the face of fierce competition, this will enable them to achieve
success in later life.
However, there are more compelling reasons to say that schools should also reward
students who show improvements. The key reason is that only a few smart students can
come first and receive the rewards. This unequivocally causes others to think that their
effort is to no avail and gradually lose the incentive to study because they cannot
surpass those outstanding individuals. Furthermore, emphasizing improvement helps all
students understand that they need to constantly improve themselves, irrespective of
how well they have been or are performing. The constant desire to outdo themselves
axiomatically benefits them more than the competitive determination to win against all
others.
In conclusion, even though it is arguably just to reward top students exclusively, schools
should do this in tandem with rewarding those who show signs of improvement. This
way, every student, those with the best performance included, is motivated to exert
themselves harder.
(285 words)
Some people think that the main function of schools is to turn children into good
citizens and workers, rather than to benefit them as individuals.
Do you agree or disagree?
The role of schools has never been unanimously agreed upon, with politicians and
capitalists justifiably positing schools as factories producing productive members of
society and fruitful workers for industries. However, my stance is that students should
become the focal point of schooling.
Admittedly, there are justifiable reasons to believe that schooling is simply a vehicle for
the government to foster effective citizens and the nation’s workforce. Chief of these is
that since children are provided with necessary skills and knowledge, they are likely to
become productive workers. The corollary of improved productivity would be
sustainable economic growth. Added to this is the fact that equipping children with
sufficient understanding of what is expected of them in society is a prerequisite for
creating a law-abiding society. With society becoming safer and more prosperous,
everyone would enjoy an improved quality of life.
However, there are more compelling reasons to say that schools ought to benefit
children as individuals. The key reason is that by focusing on helping children grow and
nurturing their talent, the well-educated workforce and the low rates of crime, mentioned
above, can also be achieved. At the same time, this approach caters for children’s
individual needs, thereby allowing them to reach their fullest potential. Furthermore, if
children are taught only certain sets of beliefs and areas of knowledge to serve certain
political or business schemes, a form of indoctrination will ensue. This would lead to the
loss of critical thinking, which in turn would have stultifying effects on the progress of
society.
In conclusion, the main function of schools should be to educate young people as
individuals, rather than to turn them into fruitful citizens and workers.
(283 words)
`
A rise in the standard of living in a country often only seems to benefit cities rather
than rural areas. What problems might these differences cause? How might these
problems be reduced?
People residing in cities are enjoying a much higher level of living standard than those in
the countryside. This has incentivized so many people in rural areas to move to big cities
in search of a better life and created many problems for both cities and rural villages.
However, these problems could be mitigated by moving jobs to rural areas.
The yearning chasm between life in urban and rural areas has resulted in a mass
migration to cities, and its concomitant problems are easily seen. Chief of these is that
many immigrants cannot find employment in cities and have to live in dilapidated
housing, leading to potential health problems. Also, unemployment inevitably breeds
crime, adversely affecting the life of city residents. Finally, as young people leave town to
find jobs in cities, villages are left with only old people and children. The shortage of
workers ineluctably hinders the economic activities of these towns.
The government could address the root cause of these problems by making rural areas
more attractive. The first step is to encourage companies to relocate to rural towns
because this would create jobs in these places. The availability of employment would
perhaps motivate local people to stay and underemployed and unemployed people to
move back from cities. However, companies would be reluctant to move their factories
to the countryside due to the lack of infrastructure and skilled workers. Thus, the
government would need to invest in roads and education to facilitate such relocation.
Perhaps tax cuts should also be offered to manufacturers who agreed to move their
plants to smaller towns.
In conclusion, the huge gap between the living standards in cities and rural areas has led
to an exodus to cities, which is creating social problems for city dwellers and negatively
affecting rural economies. These issues could be alleviated by moving industries to rural
towns. (309 words)
More and more people want to own famous brands of cars, clothes and other
items. What are the reasons for this? Is this a negative or positive trend?
People’s wishes to project their wealth and status are widely seen, and such desires are
effectively being exploited by marketers, as seen in how more and more people are
aspiring to buy expensive items. Although this development confers economic benefits,
it is detrimental on an individual level.
From a psychological standpoint, humans are naturally drawn to doing things that make
them feel ‘important’. Owning more extravagant products is certainly a manifestation of
this predisposition. This can be seen in the way one owning an expensive car often
receives praises from his friends and neighbors. To make matters worse, companies do
know how to use this to their advantage, for example by showing how happy a person
with a Roll Royce or a Gucci handbag appears to be. People who are regularly exposed
to such a message often associate their self-worth with owning more fancy items.
As more people aspire to buy brand-named products, the economy is certain to grow.
However, this does not necessarily benefit individuals. They may have to budget for a
long time and spend all of their savings on a large purchase, leaving them vulnerable to
economic turmoil. Furthermore, if more people own a certain product, it will lose its
value. This naturally encourages people to buy even more expensive items to earn other
people’s respect and ultimately to feel ‘important’ again. This blind pursuit negatively
affects the person’s self-esteem because there is always more extravagant items to buy
and wealthier people to impress.
In conclusion, people increasingly want to buy more expensive products because this
helps them feel ‘important’, and marketers are also effectively exploiting this desire. This
phenomenon can certainly lead to economic growth, but it undermines people’s
perception of their value and leaves them vulnerable to economic turbulence. (309
words)
In recent years, tourists have paid attention to preserving both the culture and
environment of the places they visit. However, some people think that it is
impossible to be a responsible tourist. To what extent do you agree or
disagree with this opinion?
It is true that a large number of holidaymakers show little to no regard to the culture and
local environment of the destinations they visit. This has led some to condemn these
tourists for their blatantly irresponsible behaviors, but in their defense, some visitors say
that it is impossible to act responsibly when they travel. I, however, believe that it is in
our ability to protect the local culture and environment.
Granted, one might argue that it is simply not possible to be responsible tourists. This is
because they have their own way of life and have the rights to practice their own
religions and beliefs even when they visit a place. Forcing them to ‘preserve’ the local
culture, thus, might curtail their individual freedom. However, it is simply a common
courtesy to respect the traditions and customs of locals. For example, tourists have
regularly been found to curse or wear inappropriately short clothes in sacred places
such as temples or pagodas, and such sacrilegious behaviors or habits are not
‘impossible’ to avoid.
In my observation, many tourist destinations have been disfigured by visitors, and there
is simply no justification for their actions. Instead of dumping trash wherever they go,
they can hold on to it until they find a trash can; instead of cutting tree branches to make
tents or fuel their bond fires, they can bring their own tents and coals; and instead of
trying to touch certain ancient artifacts, which are incredibly susceptible to breakage,
they can admire them with their bare eyes or by taking a picture of it. It is clearly an
unacceptable excuse for tourists to say that protecting the environment of the place they
visit is implausible.
In conclusion, it is not beyond the purview of visitors’ ability to both have fun and protect
the local environment and culture in places where they travel to. (317 words)
Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and
to test the safety of other products. Some people argue that these experiments
should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while
others are in favor of them because of their benefits to humanity. Discuss
both views and give your own opinion
Opinions are divided on the use of animals in scientific studies. I personally think
that animal experimentation is a necessary evil, but it should be strictly regulated.
On the one hand, animal rights advocates justifiably posit animals’ capability to
feel pain as their core argument against testing. It has been scientifically proven
that many animals have a sophisticated and developed brain, which means that
they can experience pain to the degree that is even similar to humans’. This can be
seen in the case of primates or dogs - whose screams and howls are hauntingly
piercing - when being subjected to pain in scientific experiments. It would
indisputably be wrong to force a human being to undergo such pain, so people’s
concern for the animals used in those experiments is entirely understandable.
However, completely prohibiting the use of animals in scientific research would be
unwise. Regardless of how advanced medical technologies are, animal cells cannot
be replicated to cater for certain pieces of research. Thus, to develop new
medicines and treatments, animal experimentation is only unavoidable in these
cases. Furthermore, people who lobby against the use of animals would probably
feel differently if they themselves or their family members were cured by a medicine
developed by using animal testing. Diabetes sufferers, for example, cannot live
healthily without insulin, which was developed by experimenting on dogs, and I
believe these people would be forever grateful for its discovery.
In conclusion, causing animals to experience unnecessary suffering is unacceptable.
However, I believe that the development of life-saving medicines justifies the
suffering caused for animals. Still, it is important that only vital experiments that
facilitate medical advancement be permissible; and scientists have to try to find
ways to minimize the amount of pain animals have to go through. (300 words)
Some people believe that women should play an equal role as men in a
country’s police force or military force, while others think women are not
suitable for these kinds of jobs. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
There is an opinion that women should play an equal role as their male counterparts
in ensuring the stability of their society. However, some point to women’s inferior
physical strengths as the justification for their low participation levels in these lines
of work, and I agree.
Granted, in light of gender equality, many are proposing that more women should
enlist in the army too. This proposal is predicated on the observation that most of
the people who got seriously injured or died enforcing laws are men. This is believed
to be unfair, and in order to reestablish the sense of equality, the a priori argument
is that women should not be excluded from such duties to their country.
However, this line of reasoning is not sound because women are generally not as
physically strong as their male counterparts. This very advantage of men over
women could make a pronounced difference in battles, especially in hand-to-hand
combats. The results could be dire: due to significant differences in brute physical
strength, a female officer is much more likely to fail to arrest a male violent offender,
putting herself and potentially many others in danger. Similarly, female soldiers may
be easily overwhelmed by their male enemy ones, leading to failed missions.
In conclusion, asking more women to enter the police or military force would mean
that physically unqualified females would be enlisted. This could lead to
consequential repercussions: otherwise preventable deaths, and failed missions.
Therefore, only a few women at the very end of the physical strength spectrum who
wish to serve the country should be allowed to work in these professions. (271
words)
Some people feel that manufacturers and supermarkets have the responsibility
to reduce the amount of packaging of goods, while others argue that
customers should avoid buying goods with a lot of packaging.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
It is undoubtedly important that product packaging be reduced. However, opinions
are divided on who should shoulder this responsibility. It is often argued that
producers and retail chains must cut back on the amount of packaging used, whilst
others think that consumers should boycott companies that use excessive packaging. I
believe that producers, retailers and consumers must play a part in this effort to
protect the environment.
Most people would agree that manufacturers and supermarkets should actively
reduce the amount of packaging on goods. The most frequently cited reason is that
they put excessive packaging on products in the first place. Worse still, they tend to
gravitate towards virgin materials to reduce production costs because recycling
requires huge investments in technology. This has spawned unimaginably large
landfills mostly filled with non-biodegradable waste such as used plastic cans, and
nylon bags. Therefore, the onus is on producers and retailers to remedy this situation.
However, consumers do have a role to play in curbing product packaging. This is
because manufactures and supermarkets are often hesitant to do away with packaging,
given how packaging might determine the visual appeal of products. This is
compounded by the colossal investment in green packaging. In this case, consumers
wield the power to push businesses to adopt more environmentally friendly business
activities (e.g using paper or canvas tote bags). This can be seen in the way Starbucks
has switched to paper bags and removed plastic ornaments in response to their
rapidly growing group of environment-conscious patrons.
In conclusion, cutting down on packaging is unequivocally a massive undertaking
that warrants collective effort of both the producing and the consuming ends.
Producers and supermarkets, who are responsible for the bulk of packaging, must
take steps to curtail the amount of packaging used on their products. Consumers,
meanwhile, can pressure companies to make a switch to more eco-friendly business
practices. (308 words)
Some parents think that childcare centres provide the best services for children of
pre-school age. Other working parents think that family members such as
grandparents will be better carers for their kids.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Due to the ever-increasing living costs, both parents in most families have to return to
their work or find employment several months after giving birth to their child. This has
heightened public interest in whether they should leave their young one with close
relatives or rely on day care centers for childcare. I believe that childcare professionals
offer a better overall service.
Granted, one might argue that parents in full-time employment should leave their young
ones in the hands of grandparents and siblings during working hours. This choice is
believed to give busy parents peace of mind because they know that their child will be
safer with someone in the family. However, this line of reasoning is not sound because
child molestation counter-intuitively is often committed by close relatives rather than
strangers. Furthermore, they are more likely to resort to violence or verbal abuse when
dealing with so-called intractable children in the name of “tough love”.
To add further credence to my assertion, I note that even though most kin do have some
past experience in childcare, they are not trained to understand the specifics involved in
how to bring up a child like childcare professionals, who have received years of formal
training in child rearing. In fact, many grandparents in Vietnam give their grandchild
small toys to play with, not knowing that he or she could swallow the toy and get choked.
Such a practice is strictly prohibited in childcare centers. Nurses and teachers in these
institutions are also trained to discipline young children without having to use violence.
This unequivocally creates a safe and healthy environment for children to grow up.
In conclusion, it is a better choice for parents to send their kids to daycare institutions
given the high level of service provided in these places. (302 words)
Some people think it is more important to spend public money on
promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it
on the treatment for people who are already ill. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?
Conventional wisdom holds that prevention is better than cure. While this
thinking is by no means anachronistic in our present-day society, I
disagree with those who inflate the importance of promoting healthier
lifestyles to the point of disregarding timely and proper treatments for sick
people.
Granted, one might argue that it is more sensible to spend money on
educating people about what constitutes a healthy lifestyle rather than on
curing sick people. This argument presupposes that those leading unhealthy
lifestyles are unaware of the consequences involved. However, this reasoning
is not grounded in facts because most people already understand the
problems caused by their unhealthy way of life. The real problem is that a
large proportion of the human population - in lower income bands - have
little or no choice but to eat arguably unhealthy food such as fast food. This
ineluctably makes them become prone to sickness. Nevertheless, the onus
is still on the government to treat them properly, given the government’s
responsibility to ensure the well-being of their citizens.
Another reason against overemphasis on preventative measures is that
millions of people need to go to hospital every year because their defective
genes make them become susceptible to certain health complications or
because they get involved in accidents. Furthermore, aging is still a hitherto
insoluble problem that irrevocably weakens the body's immune system,
and sickness consequently seems to be preordained to be old people’s lot.
Although getting enough exercise and having more nutritious diets could
delay such problems, people would still need to be properly treated at some
point in life. Thus, it would be a huge mistake to downplay the importance of
curative treatments for patients.
In conclusion, allocating tax money for promoting a healthier way of life
among the general public would not necessarily be of more importance
than curing sick people. (308 words)
Some people think paying taxes is a big enough contribution to their society, while
others think people have more responsibilities as members of society than only
paying taxes. Discuss and give your opinion.
One of people’s civic duties is to pay taxes so that the government can have enough
resources to maintain public services to keep a country running. However, apart from
paying taxes, I believe that we should care for other fellow human beings and protect the
environment as members of society.
On the one hand, it is understandable why some argue that paying taxes is the only
responsibility they have towards their society. With the money collected from them, the
government can build schools, and hospitals so that children can be educated, and
people with health problems can be treated. Homeless people or sick senior citizens
who do not have any surviving relatives can also be catered for with the money working
people contribute through the tax system. In this sense, by paying taxes, people do
contribute a great deal to the development of their society.
However, members of society should do more to contribute to their communities than
simply paying taxes. First, they should try to help their fellow members of society in any
way they can in order to enhance social cohesion, which is in and of itself a benefit for
everyone. Furthermore, no matter how much is being done to improve the environment
by the government, each and every one of us should actively try to cut back on energy
consumption and plastic bags. Such actions will surely lead to less pollution, hence a
healthier milieu for everyone to live in.
In conclusion, even though by paying their fair share of taxes, people can make great
contributions to their society, each individual should do more, for example by providing
support for their fellow humans and living in a more environmentally-friendly way. (285
words)
It is not necessary to travel to other places to learn about other cultures. We can
learn from books, films and the Internet. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There are now a wide range of approaches for people to learn about a foreign culture.
This has led some to argue that people no longer need to travel to other areas to learn
about the people and the culture there because they can easily learn from books, films
and the internet. I completely disagree with this school of thought for several reasons.
Admittedly, there are good reasons to say that it is unnecessary to travel to other places
to learn about the traditions, customs and ways of life there. Other means of knowledge,
such as books, films and websites dedicated to travel can teach people a great deal of
knowledge about a certain place. For example, by reading on Viettravel.com, viewers
can learn about certain social etiquette in different countries and things to do to avoid
potential conflicts when traveling to other places. Also, many travel writers or bloggers
have depicted their trips with incredible details and let their viewers live through their
experiences.
However, the fundamental reason why people travel is to gain first-hand experiences
and judge for themselves. Many travel writers only give a subjective description of the
culture of a certain place, and this can potentially be faulty and even misleading. For
example, an American travel writer wrote on his site that ketchup, pepper and lemon
should not be added when people eat Pho because these things would spoil the taste of
the broth. It turned out that he was told by a Vietnamese local who has his own
idiosyncratic eating habit rather than what appeals to the general people’s taste buds.
This example sheds light on why relying on other people’s experience is not an ideal way
to learn about a culture.
In conclusion, although books and films about different cultures in the world can be a
good source of knowledge, traveling is by no means unnecessary. (316 words)
Some believe that history has little to teach us about today while others think that
the study of the past helps us to understand the present. Discuss both views and
give your own opinion
Opinions are divided on whether past events have anything to teach us. I believe that
history, despite often being couched as anachronistic, imparts important lessons in
learners.
Granted, one might argue that lessons gained by studying history are irrelevant to our
present-day society. This is predicated on the assumption that technological
advancements have drastically changed our world, so much so that it bears little
resemblance to our ancestors’. Particularly telling are weapons used in warfare. Tactics
used by arguably the most talented warlords or kings such as Alexander I, or Egyptian
pharaohs are utterly useless when compared to the use of modern weapons such as
guided missiles, tanks, or drones in modern warfare. This example sheds light on why
some people posit that the study of history has little pragmatic utility.
However, this line of reasoning is not sound because historians time and again provide
significant insights that allow us to understand the present. A case in point is the study
of the root causes of war. Past civilizations invaded one another, insomuch as they
believed that the global economy is a zero-sum game in which one only thrives at the
expense of others. This ‘credo’ is by no means true because cooperation has allowed
our contemporary global economy to grow exponentially. This is why wars are so rare in
our contemporary society because armed conflicts would lead to economic losses not
only due to expensive weapons, but also due to fewer economic activities. This lesson is
by no means not germane to our present and is the fruit of studying the past.
In conclusion, although there are justifiable reasons to say that learning about the past is
of little value, I believe that it can still teach us valuable lessons. (295 words)