U3 The Environment
3.1 Protecting endangered species
Many animal species are becoming extinct due to human activities on land and in
the sea.
What are the reasons and solutions?
Human society develops with a heavy cost on the animal world. A vast number of
different species are being pushed to the verge of extinction. Rapid industrialization
along with rampant (uncontrolled) illegal hunting are the driving forces behind such a
tragedy; and ordinary people should join with government in an effort to protect wild,
endangered animals.
By releasing massive quantities of pollutants, many heavy industries such as steel and
mining are inflicting tremendous damage in animals’ natural habitats. Forests which are
home to wild animals are being cut down to make way for factories and fuel their
operation. Furthermore, exploiting oil from oceans possibly leads to the unfortunate
disappearance of many kinds of aquatic creatures. Many incidents where large schools of
fish are killed have happened in consequence of being exposed to chemicals and
chemical waste from oil and gas mining rigs located out at sea.
In addition, a lot of animals are being poached due to an increased demand for products
made from their body parts. In the wild, rhinos are illegal slaughtered for their horns
which are sold at high prices. Although laws and regulations are implemented in an
attempt to protect particular endangered species, it does not seem to be effective enough.
There are, in fact, several ways to help protect wild animals. First of all, the expansion of
heavy industries should be stopped by law to keep the natural environment for these
animals untouched. Individuals should be well-informed that their unnecessary needs are
a large cause of animal suffering, and hence, should refrain from using products made
from animal skin or horn.
Last but not least, poachers should be deterred and strictly punished and more wildlife
sanctuaries should be constructed in order to shelter endangered animals.
In conclusion, humans are threatening the survival of many animal species when they
expand their factories and hunt out of greed. It is imperative to put appropriate protection
measures, as I have discussed, into place.
What are some of the effects of human activities on the environment?
There are many human activities that have a negative influence on the environment.
Firstly, a large amount of exhaust from transport vehicles which contain a high
proportion of pollutants is emitted in big cities. This causes the air quality to deteriorate
and directly pose a threat to public health. Secondly, many industrial factories release
chemical waste into water sources, which can destroy aquatic ecosystems in many places.
This not only has an impact on the survival of aquatic creatures but also pollutes the
drinking water for humans. Finally, forests are being cut down to make way for factories
and fuel their operation, which are not home to wild animals anymore and decrease the
contribution to provide the oxygen. This kind of human industrial activity can possibly
lead to the unfortunate disappearance of natural habitats and some of the environmental
degradation phenomenon such as global warming and ozone layer depletion. In
conclusion, there are three main effects of human performance that affect dramatically to
the environment, which result in a decreased quality of air and water and losing the
wildlife habitats for many kinds of animal species.
What can we do to reduce our negative impacts on the environment?
There are number of things we can do to reduce the harm our activities cause for the
environment. Firstly, the Government should encourage the use of public transport which
often produces smaller quantities of pollutants. This can reduce carbon dioxide emissions
into the atmosphere and improve air quality in big cities. Secondly, the dumping of
chemical waste from factories into water sources should be restricted, and some forms of
punishment should be introduced to deter such a practice.
Finally, in need of raising social awareness of pollution level, ordinary people should be
encouraged to boycott the consumption of plastic bag which take thousands of years to be
bio-degradable, in addition, using cloth bags in daily life. In conclusion, there are three
key actions to refrain the detrimental influences on the environment, including the
intervention of the Government and the actions of the common people in accordance of
regulations.
Some people think that international car-free days are an effective way of reducing
air pollution, however, others think there are other ways?
While international car free days are thought to effectively reduce the level of air
pollution, some people believe that there are other alternatives that are more effective.
This essay will discuss both of these views.
On the one hand, it is true that exhaust fumes from cars are a major cause of air pollution
as they contain a relatively high proportion of pollutants such as CO2. By having some
days without cars on the road, no harmful smoke will be released into the atmosphere,
and this will therefore improve air quality. This policy is extremely effective in big cities
around the world, such as Beijing, which is known its atmosphere filled with smog. Since
this car free days policy has been introduced, the air quality of the city has greatly
improved.
On the other hand, local governments should try to further encourage the use of public
transport, such as subways and buses, as they produce a smaller quantity of pollutants,
which in turn is less likely to impact air quality. In addition to this, the disposal of waste,
especially plastic waste which emits toxic fumes if burned, should be closely regulated
and monitored. The final and most effective way of reducing air pollution is to use
sustainable and environmentally friendly energy sources, such as solar or wind power, to
replace fossil fuels in the long term.
In conclusion, these measures are all effective in addressing the problem of air pollution,
but only to a certain extent, Such a problem needs to be dealt with by a number of
different approaches and I believe that only implementing one approach will be
ineffective.
Some people believe that the responsible for the protection of the environment is by
a transnational organization, rather than by each individual country. To what
extent do you agree or disagree?
Some people argue that protecting the environment should be the duty of each individual
nation, while others believe that it should be the responsibility of a multinational
organization. Personally, I believe that although each country needs to be responsible for
the protection of its own natural landscapes, there should also be an international
governing body that monitors each country’s actions.
First and foremost, the protection of the environment should ultimately be the responsible
of each individual nation and its inhabitants. A healthy and flourishing natural
environment is essential for healthy human societies. The people who live in a country
are the ones who will mainly be affected by environmental destruction and damage
within that country, and it therefore these people who should be most concerned. When a
country pollutes its atmosphere and waterways with toxic emissions from heavy industry,
the burning of fossil fuels and incorrect waste disposal, the people of that nation must
breathe that contaminated air and utilize that polluted water, and this can have
detrimental effects on people’s physical health and well-being.
However, unfortunately, many countries governments are riddle with corruption and the
best interests of the people are not always maintained. Therefore, it is necessary for an
international organization to monitor and educate people about the activities occurring
within each country with regards to environmental issues. Many people around the world
simply do not realize the short and long-term impacts that their actions have on the
environment, and
I believe that education is one effective answer to help solve this problem. Another cause
of concern is that the actions of one country’s environmental destruction can have
negative impacts on nearby neighboring countries, and this is where an international
organization can help to monitor such circumstances.
In conclusion, although environmental protection needs to be the responsibility of each
individual nation, there should also be one transnational organization that educates and
monitors environmental concerns. There are many countries, yet only one planet, and
therefore there needs to be cooperation in order for a healthy and sustainable future.
U1 Education
What are the benefits of pursuing university education?
There are many benefits of pursuing tertiary education. Firstly, a university degree will
open the door to better job opportunities. This is because universities offer students a
holistic learning environment, where students cannot only have a chance to acquire
theoretical knowledge but also cultivate practical skills. Secondly, students are usually
encouraged to participate in extracurricular activities while pursuing higher education.
This will enable them to improve soft skills such as teamwork and communication skills.
Finally, in this knowledge-based society, people who are well-educated are likely to
become more financially comfortable because of their well-behaved at some of the
foreign languages, computer-literate skill and a wide circle of relationship throughout the
university life. In conclusion, it is clear that there are three obvious benefits of being in
higher education such as enhancing career prospects, improving social skills and gaining
a well-paid job in the future for university graduates.
What are the benefits of using technology in education?
There are many benefits of integrating technology into education. Firstly, integrating
technology into classroom will create an effective learning environment as well as enable
students to have access to a huge amount of information available on the Internet.
This, as a result, will reduce teacher’s workload. Secondly, it is more convenient for
students who live away from school because they can still participate in online courses.
For example, learners can participate in virtual classrooms which are allowed to attend
lessons from anywhere in the world. Last but not least, due to the distinctive advantages
of online platforms, which provide learners with flexible learning opportunities and
become more computer-literate, can probably foster student’s independent learning and
cultivate the computer skill. In conclusion, it is clear that there are three great deals of
benefits of addition technology to learning environment such as helping learners to study
effectively and gaining some practical skills no matter where in the world they live.
Is it neither possible nor useful to provide university places for a high proportion of
young people? To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some people might argue that providing tertiary education for the majority of young
people is not possible and useful. Personally, I disagree with these ideas and will outline
my reason in the essay below.
Firstly, having a university degree no longer has a vital role to the future of young people
even in this knowledge-based society. In many countries, especially Germany, vocational
training has gained more popularity among young people because it enhances
employment opportunities as well as job security upon completion. Furthermore, if
everyone could get admitted to college, it would lead to imbalances in the workforce that
would greatly damage the economic structure of a country. This is because there is little
chance that university graduates would choose blue-collar jobs such as working in
factories, over the jobs that they are qualified for.
Secondly, I think that it is impossible to provide almost all young people with access to
higher education. In VN, the demand for entering college never ceases to grow. This puts
the government in a dilemma of whether they should risk allocating their resources and
possible face a financial predicament due to exorbitant education costs in many
financially independent universities. Moreover, it is simply unrealistic for universities to
accommodate such a sudden increase in the number of students on campus,
not to mention the fact that most departments are currently short-staffed.
In conclusion, I strongly oppose the idea of dispensing tertiary education to a high
proportion of young people owing to the arguments presented above.
Nowadays, some employers think that formal academic qualifications are more
important than life experience or personal qualities when they look for new
employees. Why is it this case? Is it a positive or negative development?
In this increasingly competitive society, academic university degrees are considered to be
more essential than hands-on experience by some employers when they seek new
candidates. Although there are some underlying reasons for this, I still believe that this is
completely a negative movement.
There are two factors to explain why some job recruiters prefer university qualifications
to life experience when recruiting new employees. Firstly, in many professions, formal
academic degrees seem to be the top priority of many employers when selecting new
applicants. In order to become a doctor, for example, a candidate has to acquire a great
deal of medical knowledge as well as spend a lot of time to practice and carry out
experiments. Secondly, this trend might be a great way to save time for employee
recruiters. Compared to formal academic candidates who are likely ready to start working,
employees may have to spend time on training non-academic applicants how to work
properly. Therefore, this saved time can be used in other valuable ways.
However, I think that this is a negative development and both academic and nonacademic job hunters should receive equal chance in the recruitment process. This is
because many people decide to work right after school instead of starting tertiary
education in order to gain life skills and practical experience. On top of that, after a long
time of working in a real work environment, people are also capable of doing most
assigned tasks without a formal academic education. The typical example can be seen in
the case of Steve Jobs, a founder of Apple, who was the most successful person in the
technology industry without holding any formal education in this field.
In conclusion, this trend is attributable to two main reasons, and I believe that this is a
negative progress for the above-mentioned arguments.
Some universities offer online courses as an alternative to classes delivered on
campus. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?
Online learning has become a common feature of university education for some time. In
my opinion, this has both positive and negative impacts on student’s learning outcomes.
On the one hand, offering online courses at university can be beneficial in several ways.
Firstly, those courses allow students to have a flexible learning schedule because they are
able to attend lessons at a particular time and place that they find most suitable. This is
particularly advantageous for students who live away from campus. Secondly, students
can have access to an unlimited amount of resources on the Internet, the majority of
which are free of charge. This can facilitate their learning process and improve their
independent learning skills.
On the other hand, online courses are a poor substitute for traditional classes delivered at
universities. These courses do not offer learners face-to-face interaction which is still
important to their understanding of the lessons. In addition, this type of learning does not
allow discussions between classmates either, and without peer support, student’s learning
outcomes might be affected in an undesirable way. Furthermore, as a lot of self-discipline
is required and there are so many distractions from the Internet while studying from an
online website, students are more likely to procrastinate. This also contributes to lower
results as students may tend to lose focus during lessons.
In conclusion, having online courses available to choose at university might be of much
benefit to students in a number of ways. However, their drawbacks in terms of decreased
learning outcomes should be accounted for.
Schools are no longer necessary because children can get so much information
available through the internet, and they can study just as well at home.
To what extend do you agree or disagree?
Since there is a wealth of information available on the Internet, students can study by
themselves at home just as effectively as they do at school; and therefore some people
believe that schools are not needed anymore. In my view, much I agree that students can
study at home with the help of the Internet, I feel that schools play a vital role in our
society and cannot be replaced no matter what.
There are ways for children to learn from the internet, most of which are either free or
affordable for almost everyone. One great way is from online newspaper and video
websites such as National Geographic and YouTube, which offers a variety of topic areas
suitable for people of different ages. Children can learn a great deal of knowledge about
culture, science, and many other areas which they are taught at schools. Also, they can
participate in online courses favored by a growing number of youths nowadays. This type
learning is even more advantageous in the sense that children can flexibly choose to study
whatever subjects they are interested in.
That being said, my conviction is that formal education is irreplaceable in any society. It
is true that students can acquire knowledge at home very easily, however, lack of
teacher’s guidance and peer support is a clear disadvantage to this form of learning,
These factors are extremely important to a child’s intellectual development, which
emphasizes the necessity of school environments. Furthermore, knowledge and skills are
not the only things to expect from formal education but social relationships and mental
development. Children who go to school and establish friendships can both have fun and
improve their learning outcomes.
In conclusion, the Internet is a good way for young children t study at home, but I think
that claiming schools are irrelevant to children’s learning is merely absurd.