It is sometimes said that a high salary is the most important factor in choosing a job. Do you agree?

It is, of course, important for people to earn a sufficiently high salary to support their lifestyle. This does not mean, however, that the salary is the only point to be taken into consideration when choosing a job. Indeed, I would argue that there are a number of other factors that are equally significant.

The first point to consider is why it may be a mistake to place too much emphasis on the salary. One reason why this is so is that you may select a job that is well-paid but ultimately unsatisfying. In this case, you may spend 8 hours a day being unhappy. Something else to be taken into account is that highly-paid jobs tend to be stressful and involve long working hours. For instance, many doctors have a 60 hour working week and they often suffer from burn out early in their careers and wish they had chosen a less stressful profession.

The other point to be taken into account is how other factors may matter more than the salary when deciding on a job. Indeed, most people would accept that the work environment is key to job satisfaction. If you are working alongside people you like and the atmosphere in the office is positive, you are much more likely to be satisfied in your work. Likewise, it is also critical that you actually enjoy what you do. For example, someone who is artistic is much more likely to be happy working for a low salary teaching art than earning a fortune as a merchant banker.

In conclusion, I would say that the salary should be only one consideration in choosing a job and that other factors such as job satisfaction and work environment are just as important.

Consumers are faced with increasing numbers of advertisements from competing companies. To what extent do you think are consumers influenced by advertisements? What measures can be taken to protect them?

In today’s material world, we are inundated with various forms of advertising. In my view, this can be dangerous as it encourages us to spend without thinking and young people, in particular, need some protection from it.

The first point to make is that advertising does make us spend money we do not need to. There are nowadays so many different ways companies promote their products and services, ranging from television commercials to simple flyers that we cannot escape it. If, for example, you watch a football match on television, you will see the logos of the tournament sponsors. Likewise, if you watch the latest blockbuster movie, very probably you will see a product placed in the film by some advertising agency. The  volume of this advertising means that we, as consumers, tend to be profoundly influenced by it and buy without thinking.

It is not easy to decide how to regulate advertising. Clearly, governments ought to restrict advertisements for harmful products such as alcohol and tobacco. They do not have the power, however, to control other forms of advertising. This means we need to use our common sense when we go to the shops, and ask ourselves whether we really need to make that purchase. Parents should, however, ensure that young people are protected from too much exposure to advertising. This can mean simply explaining that it is not in fact necessary to buy the newest Xbox, or simply turning the television off.

My conclusion is that while we cannot escape advertising or its effects in the modern world, children should be encouraged not to pay too much attention to it.

Many people want their country to host an international sporting event. Others believe that international sporting events bring more problems than benefits. Discuss both views and state your opinion.

There is frequently great competition to host international sporting events. Not everyone, however, believes that the price involved in hosting such events is worthwhile. For me, this is an understandable point of view and perhaps not every country should try and stage international sporting events.

The major argument against hosting international sporting events is financial. Typically, it can cost several million pounds to build the arenas and modernise the infrastructure so that it can cater for the athletes and the spectators. This money, it is argued, would be better spent on welfare and education programmes that provide direct support for the population. Indeed, some governments have incurred so much debt through hosting the Olympic Games that they have had to reduce spending on other social programmes.

While there is some merit in that argument, hosting sporting events does also bring significant benefits. First among these is the honour and prestige it brings to the host country because that country will be the centre of the sporting world for the duration of the event. For many people this is beyond any price. More than that, if the authorities plan carefully, they can

use the occasion of the sporting event to help finance public works that benefit the whole population in the long term. For example, the village for the athletes can be transformed into public housing and the various stadia can be used to build a sporting legacy for future generations.

My own view is that it is an honour for a country to host a major sporting event. However, if a government wishes to bid for an international event to be staged in its country, it should ensure it has sufficient funds to maintain spending on other projects.

Some people believe that exams are an inappropriate way of measuring students’ performance and should be replaced by continuous assessment. Do you agree or disagree with this view?

There is some dispute whether the best method of assessing students is to use examinations or some form of continuous assessment. This is a complex issue and my belief is that there is probably no one method that applies to all educational systems.

There are three major arguments in favour of retaining exams. One is that they provide a clear and objective measure of what students have learned, whereas any form of continuous assessment is probably going to be far more subjective. An additional point is that testing tends to be an excellent way of motivating learners to study harder and to reward the students who do best. Likewise, examinations test the ability of students to work under pressure, and this is a vital life skill for their later careers.

On the other hand, there are still occasions when it can be better to relieve the students of exam pressure and to measure their abilities through continuous assessment. This is particularly the case in lower age groups where young children can be affected negatively by stress and under-perform in exams. It can also be argued that continuous assessment is a more effective way of testing some subjects such as design and technology, which are more creative and less academic. A further point is that often continuous assessment can allow teachers to reward students who work hard, but who may be less able and not do well in more formal testing.

In conclusion, while continuous assessment may be fairer in some contexts, there are still times when traditional exams may be more appropriate. A possible compromise would be to use both forms of testing together, allowing teachers to reward both ability and hard work.

We are becoming increasingly dependent on computer technology. It is used in business, crime detection and even to fly planes. What will it be used for in future? Is this dependence on technology a good thing or should we be suspicious of its benefits?

As we move into the twenty-first century, it is clear to see that we have become more and more dependent on computers and information technology. This technology now reaches into almost every area of our lives and it is easy to predict that this phenomenon is only going to grow. My personal belief is that this presents a variety of dangers.

It is highly likely that in the future there will be comparatively few aspects of our lives that will not be influenced by computer technology. The probability is that it will control more and more forms of communication, transforming fields such as education and business when video-conferencing platforms become more stable. It might even affect romance with more people forming relationships online.

While there may be benefits to this technological revolution, there are also a number of potential dangers. Perhaps the most serious of these would be  that if people rely on computers too much for communication, they could in fact begin to communicate less well. For example, if every member of a family had their own computer screen and smart phone, they might speak less and less often to one another and simply look at a screen. This would be serious because our ability to communicate is an essential part of our humanity.

My conclusion is that the growth of computer technology is inevitable, but that this may not be entirely positive. Just one area in which it is possible to foresee dangers is communication, and if we are going to ensure that computers do not become a negative influence, we need to think carefully how we use them.

Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild animals because we humans have no need for them. I completely disagree with this point of view.

In my opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild animals have no place in the 21st century. I do not believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit of humans, and there is nothing special about this particular century that means that we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the extinction of any species. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why we should let animals die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every last square metre of land in order to feed or accommodate the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with wild animals, and this should be our aim.

I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is usually the protection of natural habitats that ensures the survival of wild animals, and most scientists agree that these habitats are also crucial for human survival. For example, rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilise the Earth’s climate. If we destroyed these areas, the costs of managing the resulting changes to our planet would far outweigh the costs of conservation. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth.

In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist, and I believe that we should do everything we can to protect them.

In the last century, the first man to walk on the moon said it was "a giant leap for mankind”. However, some people think it has made little difference to our daily lives. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

You can see my 4-paragraph plan in the lesson, but a student asked me to explain exactly how we can 'partly agree'. So here's my sample introduction:

It is often argued that the act of sending a man to the moon has been of no benefit to normal people. While I agree that this is true in practical terms, I believe that the psychological impact of this great achievement should not be underestimated.

n recent years, there has been a considerable rise in crimes committed by young people in cities.

What has caused this? What solutions can you suggest?

The rise of crime among young people is an urgent problem in many cities that needs to be addressed. However, in order to find a solution, it is first of all necessary to understand what has led to this happening. In this essay, I first of all examine the reasons for the rise in youth crime, then I suggest how this problem may be resolved.

Perhaps the principal cause of this rise in youth crime is the increased use of drugs and alcohol among young people. Many cities suffer from the phenomenon of binge drinking by teenagers who lose control under the influence of alcohol and commit crimes. For instance, it is a common sight on the streets of Britain to see fights breaking out outside pubs and clubs. Similarly, there is a clear connection between drug abuse among the young and crime. It is still unfortunately the case that young people frequently see drugs as cool and become addicted. It is a common occurrence  for  these addicts to resort to petty theft in order to pay for their habit.

There are  a variety of potential ways of combatting this problem. One possibility that is sometimes suggested is a much stricter system of penalties and punishments to deter young people from a life of crime. That might work, but it would also be sensible to improve the system of education so that young people were better informed about the dangers of drugs and alcohol. This should have the effect of dealing with the issues that cause youth crime in the first place.

In conclusion, alcohol and drug abuse are among the primary reasons for the rise in young offenders and if the authorities wish to tackle youth crime, one approach would be to educate the young more effectively.

Differences between countries become less evident each year. Nowadays, all over the world people share the same fashions, advertising, brands, eating habits and TV channels. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of this?

It is undoubtedly the case that the world today has become a global village. One of the effects of this is that increasingly people in all corners of the world are exposed to similar services and products and adopt similar habits. My view is that this is largely a beneficial process and in this essay I will explain why.

The first point to make is that there are some downsides to this process of cultural globalisation, but these are relatively minor. The most significant of these disadvantages is that it can weaken national culture and traditions. For example, if people watch films and television programmes produced in the United States, sometimes they adopt aspects of the lifestyle of the American characters they see on television. Typically, however, this only affects minor details such as clothing and does not seriously threaten national identity.

When we turn to the other side of the argument, there are two major points to make in favour of this process. The first of these is that the more we share habits, products and services, the better we understand each other and this reduces prejudice against other nations. The other point relates to modernity. It is a sign of progress in a society that people no longer are restricted to brands and advertisements from their own society but are able to access more international goods. If, for example, there were unable to drink Coca Cola or wear Nike, then that would mean their society was not part of the international community.

In conclusion, I understand the point of view of people who worry about cultural globalisation because it is a threat to national traditions. However, this is outweighed by its positive impact on international understanding and the fact that it represents progress within a society.

In cities and towns all over the world the high volume of traffic is a problem. What are the causes of this and what actions can be taken to solve this problem?

It is undoubtedly the case that urban areas around the world increasingly suffer from congestion. In this essay, I examine the reasons for this trend and suggest some practical policies the authorities could implement to reduce the level of traffic in our cities.

The first step is to understand why traffic has increased in towns and cities. Broadly speaking, there are three main reasons for this. One is that cars have become more affordable for the average consumer and they are no longer a luxury item, but something that most families expect to own. A second reason is that public transport has become increasingly unreliable in recent years, not least because many bus and train services have been reduced because of the difficulty in funding them. The third reason is that society has in general become more mobile and this means more people are prepared to commute to work by car than they were before.

There is almost certainly no one solution to this problem given the complexity of its causes. However, one option has to be to improve the reliability of public transport to encourage people to take the bus or the train rather than get in the car. It would also be possible to discourage people from driving to work by introducing special tariffs for using the roads, especially during peak periods. A successful example of this is the congestion charge scheme in London which has certainly reduced the level of trafficin inner-city areas.

In conclusion, there are a variety of different factors that have led to rising levels of traffic in urban areas. While it may not be possible to find a complete solution, any action should probably involve encouraging greater use of public transport and making it more expensive for the motorist to drive in urban areas.

In recent years, farming practice has changed to include methods such as factory farming and the use of technology to improve crops. Some people believe these developments are necessary, while others regard them as dangerous and advocate a return to more traditional farming methods. Discuss both points of view and give your own opinion.

There is some controversy about how farming has been revolutionised in the past decades. While it is possible to claim that the net effect of these changes has been for the benefit of mankind, my view is that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. In this essay, I shall explain my point of view by analysing both sides of the argument.

There are several reasons why these innovations in agriculture can be said to be positive. One is that the world’s population has exploded within the past century and that traditional methods of agriculture could not provide sufficient food for everyone. It can also be argued that we need more efficient methods of farming because many countries in Asia and Africa suffer regular famine and droughts and the people would starve if it was not for genetically modified crops that are drought resistant. It should also not be forgotten that the quality of life of farmers has been improved by these advances which are less labour intensive.

Those who argue for a return to smaller scale and more organic farming base their arguments on the impact of agriculture on health and the environment. Firstly, it is claimed that a variety of diseases such as BSE, swine flu and bird flu were caused by conditions in factory farms and that organic food is much healthier. Then, there are concerns about the lack of research into how genetically modified crops might affect the ecosystem for the worse.

While there are strong arguments on both sides of the case, my personal belief is that the long-term dangers of these developments mean that we should be extremely cautious. I suggest that there should be more investment in traditional farming methods to make them more efficient and that there should be stronger legislation to ensure that both factory farms and GM crops are safe.

Newspapers and books are outdated. Why do some people believe this? What is your opinion?

As we move into the twenty- first century an increasing number of people are relying on new forms of technology. A possible consequence of this is that traditional media such as books and newspapers are not just less popular but are considered by some to be outdated. Personally, I disagree with this point of view.

The principal reason why some people take this view is fairly clear in the case of newspapers. It is generally much easier and quicker to discover what is happening in the world from the internet or the television than from a newspaper. If you use Google or another search engine or simply switch on the television, you can instantly get the latest news bulletin. A newspaper, by contrast, is out of date the moment it is published because it contains yesterday’s news.

It is perhaps less obvious why books are said to be out of fashion. One possibility is that fewer people choose to read for pleasure nowadays because they prefer the instant gratification and thrills of modern technology. There is less effort involved in enjoying a 3D movie or playing a computer game than in turning the pages of a book.

My own view and conclusion is that books and newspapers will never go completely out of fashion or become redundant. The reason for this is that they serve basic human needs. I believe that people will always want to read about the news and escape into the imaginary worlds of great novels. However, books and newspapers may need to change to meet the new demands of twenty-first century consumers. We can already see this happening with the arrival of the audio-book and the various free newspaper internet sites. (292 words)

In many countries people working in sport and entertainment earn much more money than professionals like doctors, nurses and teachers. Why do you think this happens in some societies and do you consider it is good or bad?

It is undoubtedly true that there is often a major imbalance between the salaries of the professional classes and celebrities from the worlds of sport and entertainment. At first sight, this seems unjust, but on closer analysis it is easy to understand why it happens and see that it is almost inevitable.

It does often seem wrong that certain people should earn so much money when their only talent is to entertain. While giving pleasure is important, people in the medical and educational professions have far more important roles in society. For example, a surgeon can save your life in the operating theatre and a teacher can prepare you for your career. Indeed, because both doctors and teachers are so vital to any society, it would seem only right that they receive the largest financial rewards.

When, however, we look to see who earns the most, we discover that it is typically sports and entertainment personalities. There are a variety of reasons why this should be. Firstly, we live in the age of mass media: these people earn so much because they are national or even global stars and get rewarded through endorsements and other sources of income. Secondly, these stars are unique in a way doctors and teachers are not, often they can do what no one else can. Finally, sometimes these stars may have short careers in comparison with other professions. For instance, while doctors can work until they are 65, footballers normally retire in their early 30s.

I personally believe that in the ideal world someone’s income would relate to their value to society. However, in the modern world, it is almost unavoidable the famous will have the highest incomes because of their media exposure.

Unemployment is one of the most serious problems facing developed nations today. What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of reducing the working week to thirty five hours?

It is unquestionable that rising unemployment is one of the most pressing issues in the industrial world. One solution that has been put forward is to cut the working week to a maximum of 35 hours. However, in my view this solution is rather controversial and other solutions need to be found.

It is fairly easy to understand the reasons why this proposal has been made. The reasoning is that if workers are not allowed to work for more than 35 hours weekly, then employers will be forced to engage more staff. There would be at least two advantages to this. Not only would unemployment be reduced, but the working conditions of employees on very long shifts would also be significantly improved. For example, a factory employing 300 manual workers doing 10 hours a day might employ 450 workers.

There is also, however, a strong argument not to implement this proposal. This argument is based on economic competitiveness. If a company was forced to employ more workers to produce the same amount of goods, then its wage bill would rise and its products might become more expensive and less competitive compared to companies with longer working weeks. In this case, it is possible that the company either might become insolvent or it would have to make some employees redundant. As a result, the intended benefit to the personnel would not happen.

In summary, we can see that this is clearly a complex issue as there are significant advantages and disadvantages to the proposal. My own personal view is that it would be better not to introduce the shortened working week because it works only in theory and not in practice.

Space exploration requires vast sums of money. Is the amount of money spent on space research justifiable? Could the money be better spent?There has always been considerable discussion about whether governments should spend tax payers’ money on space research. In my view it is impossible to justify the amount of money spent on such projects. Generally speaking, the main reason for this position is that there are several areas in which the money could be invested better.

The first point to make is that politicians have a responsibility to spend public money on projects that bring a benefit to the general public. This has not been the case with space research as most developments have been limited to helping astronauts in space or have been very specialised. For example, it is not of great value to the general public that we now have pens and biros that can write upside down. This does not merit the huge amount of money spent.

The second point to make is that there are many much more urgent projects on Earth that require investment. If governments spent less money on space research, then they would be able to help solve some of these problems such as population control, elimination of diseases like cholera, global warming and food shortages. It seems to me that all of these issues are more important because they affect the lives of millions of ordinary people. An illustration of this is that the US government could provide food for all the starving people in the world if they did not spend so much on NASA.

My conclusion is that politicians should not fund space research. The grounds for saying this are that it is very costly and provides few real benefits. Furthermore, there are several more urgent issues that need to be funded.

Subjects such as Art, Sport and Music are being dropped from the school curriculum for subjects such as Information Technology. Many people children suffer as a result of these changes. To what extent would you support or reject the idea of moving these subjects from school curriculum?

In recent times there has been much debate about which subjects should be included on the school curriculum. One particular issue is whether the introduction of more modern subjects such as IT for more traditional subjects such as art and music disadvantages the pupils. I believe that this is a difficult question and different solutions need to be found for primary and secondary schools.

There is one major argument in favour of replacing art, music and sport on the curriculum with subjects like IT. This is that the purpose of school is to prepare children for their working life after school, so the subjects on the curriculum should be relevant to their potential careers. From this point of view, IT is much relevant to schoolchildren as they need to be computer literate if they want to survive in the workplace. For example, it is easy to see that word processing and programming skills will impress employers more than the ability to run fast or draw well.

There are also, however, strong arguments for retaining the more traditional subjects as part of the curriculum. One significant counter-argument is that the purpose of education is not just to prepare children for later careers, but also to develop their all round “culture”. It is important that children leave school with some knowledge of art, music and sport as all these are all help develop aspects of young people’s personalities.

My own personal point of view is that there is merit in both sides of the debate and that all children should study some IT, art music and sport at least at primary school. At secondary school, however, children should be offered a choice between these subjects so that they can continue to study them if they wish.

In the past lectures were the traditional method of teaching large numbers of students. Nowadays new technology is increasingly being used to teach students. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this new approach?

As we move into the twenty-first century, technology is affecting many different areas of life and education is no exception. Indeed, in some institutions traditional forms of education have been revolutionised by new technology to the extent that the lecture is no longer the main method of delivery. While there are a variety of benefits to this new approach, there are also significant drawbacks.

Perhaps the greatest bonus of the introduction of technology is the flexibility it offers. This is evident in two different ways. Firstly, it is now no longer essential for students to be present in the lecture theatre for their courses. This means that part-time courses for adults who are in employment and distance learning courses for people in other countries are now much more practical. Another area of flexibility is of course that the lecturer and tutor are able to use Moodles, interactive whiteboards and other tools to deliver their courses in a more stimulating way to large numbers of students.

Not everything, however, about the introduction of this new technology into education is positive. One major problem is that not all students are comfortable with using technology, even if they are part of the digital native generation. This is a serious issue as they may suffer from their lack of technological skills. Another related issue is that education is a human activity and it works best with as much human interaction as possible. Impersonal technology cannot replace the human contact found in traditional face-to-face tutorials and seminars.

As we have seen, there are major benefits to the introduction of technology into education, not least because it enables modern forms of education such as distance learning courses. This is balanced, however, by the fact that it can be too impersonal for some and disadvantages others for their lack of technological skills.

Many historic buildings are being destroyed or replaced. What are the reasons for this? What should be done to preserve these buildings?

We live in an age of progress and one result of that is that the urban landscape of many cities is changing. An unfortunate consequence of this is that some historic buildings are being lost for future generations. Something needs to be done to preserve these buildings and, to ensure that, we first need to understand why they are being destroyed.

There are a variety of reasons why these buildings are being replaced and this mainly depends on their original purpose. Many of these historic buildings were residential and typically the problem is that they no longer have the appropriate facilities for modern-day living. For example, they might have been built in an era when central heating was not a priority, or even when bathrooms and toilets were outside. Unfortunately, it is often cheaper to pull these buildings down rather than renovate them.

Other historic buildings that are now under threat originally had a civic function and were built in city centres. Examples of these buildings are theatres and cinemas. As often as not, these buildings are being replaced through economic necessity as they are no longer financially viable. They are being replaced by supermarkets or modern cinema complexes that cater for the demands of the twenty-first century.

There is probably no one solution to ensure that these buildings are preserved. One possible step though would be for the civic planning authorities to list certain builidngs that they consider historic and prevent any alterations being made to them. Another possibility would be to ensure that at least the facades of these buildings were preserved for posterity.

Clearly, this is a complex problem and we have seen that there are a number of social and financial factors that have led to the destruction of historic buildings.  If we are to preserve them, we will need legislation to prevent or limit the  activities of developers.

Today’s food travels thousands of miles before it reaches customers. Is this a positive or negative trend? 

In the modern world, we frequently no longer rely on food that has been grown locally, but we have become accustomed to buying produce from all over the world. While this trend has some clear benefits to consumers, I would argue that overall transporting food over long distances is a negative.

The strongest argument against importing food is environmental. Studies have shown that transport and the use of fossil fuels is one of the leading causes of global warming and climate change. This means that if we want to lead a greener lifestyle, we should be trying to minimise transport and this includes the unnecessary transport of foodstuffs.

Another point that needs to be considered is the impact of transporting food on local farmers and traditional ways of life. Again, there is good research to show that farmers and smallholders are unable to compete in price with the supermarkets that import cheap, and often low-quality, produce from abroad. This is not just a problem for local farmers who are likely to go out of business, it also has an impact on weakening traditional communities that rely on those farms for employment and trade.

A further consideration is that food that has travelled across the world is considerably less healthy than locally grown, fresh produce. The simple point is that the further food travels before it reaches the consumer, the less fresh it will be and any nutritionist will confirm that fresh food is fuller of vitamins. Therefore, it would be preferable if supermarkets and other stores did not transport food from other countries.

In conclusion, I believe that the trend for transporting food over long distances is undesirable because it is environmentally unfriendly, threatens local communities and results in less healthy options for the consumer.

(294 words)

Some people think that teenagers should do unpaid work to help society because this will help them to be better individuals and also improve the society as a whole. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this proposal?

While there are grounds to argue that it would benefit society and young people themselves if teenagers were made to do unpaid work in the community, it can equally be argued that this would be an infringement of their rights. In this essay, I shall examine the merits of both sides of the argument.

One argument in favour of making teenagers to do voluntary work in the community is that it would benefit society. It is certainly true that there is a shortage of labour in many parts of the public sector and if young people worked, then many public services would improve. For example, it would be quite possible for teenagers to do part-time jobs in the health such as working as hospital porters. This would have the effect of ensuring patients got better care and would allow trained professionals to concentrate on more skilled tasks – something that would benefit society as a whole.

A second argument is that teenagers would mature as individuals if they went out to work, especially if it was in the voluntary sector. Currently, many teenagers have little sense of social responsibility and spend much of their free time plying basketball or computer games. If, however, they were given real life tasks to do, they would learn important life skills such as responsibility, teamwork and leadership. These skills would almost certainly benefit them in their later careers.

Despite these arguments, there is an equally strong case to be made that it would be morally wrong to force teenagers to go out to work, particularly if they did not earn a salary. This can be explained by the fact that in recent years, there has been a global movement to stop the practice of child labour. The main philosophy behind this movement is that childhood, including the teenage years, should be a time for education and growth, not work. It would not just send the wrong message out if teenagers were made to do voluntary work, there is also the real danger that young people would be exploited in the workplace.

In conclusion, I believe that while there are real merits on both sides of the argument,  the moral case againstforcing young people to work slightly outweighs any benefit to society or to teenagers as individuals. This is reinforced by belief in the principle that childhood is a time for education and fear of the danger of exploitation.

Some argue younger people are not suitable for important positions in the government, while others think this is a good idea. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Government jobs carry with them serious responsibilities. It is therefore no surprise that a person’s age and experience come under scrutiny when positions in government need to be filled. Many feel influential government jobs should be reserved for those who are older and have more experience, while others feel the criterion for these positions should be capability, namely whomever is most able to carry out the job. This essay will look at both sides before drawing a logical conclusion.

On the one hand, many argue that younger people should be made ineligible for important government positions, and the implications of this opinion are clear. Those operating at senior levels within a country’s military, for example, require field experience to prevent disastrous decisions that could cause the needless loss of life. Were younger people allowed to fast track their ascension within a country’s military, they could find themselves having to make critical

choices based more on theoretical study than practical experience, and this could have catastrophic results. Thus, is it understandable why many feel younger government workers should be incubated before given promotion to important positions.

However, there are several plausible counters to this argument. For one, younger workers bring creativity and fresh ideas to government. For example, young government workers in Canada successfully pushed to increase HIV understanding and dispel stigmas attached to the disease in the 1980s, a development that encouraged tolerance and reduced irrational fear. In addition to fresh ideas, it should be remembered that to get a government job, one has to successfully engage a rigorous screening process. If a younger person engages this process as well or better than an older person, it is hard to argue that age should be a decisive factor when offering employment. It is clear from these reasons that there is merit to awarding important government career options to younger people.

Although the above look reveals solid evidence for both sides of the argument, it is felt that the healthiest approach to designating government positions is to ensure candidates fulfil rigorous training programs. Thus, a person’s age should not be considered a universal precursor to the awarding of government jobs.

Is freedom of speech necessary in a free society?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

model answer:

In the last decade, there has been considerable debate over the role of free speech in a free society. Some object to absolute freedom of speech. Others advocate free speech, arguing that the freedom of speech is the single most important political right of citizens in a civilized society. Whilst I believe that there are strong arguments on both sides, I would suggest that freedom of speech should be protected in all but extreme circumstances.

The freedom of speech is important at all levels in a society. Yet it is most important for government. A government which does not know what the people feel and think is in a dangerous position. This is how the communist regimes of Eastern Europe were toppled in the 1980s. The same is happening again in other regions of the world today. The governments that muzzle free speech run a risk of pushing their people to behave destructively or to rebel.

Furthermore, without free speech no political action is possible and no resistance to injustice and oppression is possible. Without free speech elections would have no meaning at all. Policies of contestants become known to the public and become responsive to public opinion only by virtue of free speech. Between elections the freely expressed opinions of citizens help restrain oppressive rule. Without this freedom it is futile to expect political freedom or consequently economic freedom.

In conclusion, I believe that the importance of free speech as a basic and valuable characteristic of a free society cannot be underestimated. It may be challenging for society to allow differences of opinion out into the open; however, the consequences of restricting free speech are likely to be more damaging in the longer term.

Many students decide to further their study abroad what are the benefits and drawbacks of studying abroad. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Nowadays, along the rapid development of economy, some students think that study abroad brings many benefits, while others are of the opinion that they should finish university education in their motherland. It is quite natural that people from different backgrounds may have divergent attitudes towards it.

Students, who advocate that study abroad has a lot of disadvantage, have their sound reasons. First of all, living far away from home, students will suffer from loneliness and homesickness. Overseas students often fell disoriented and depressed for lack of adequate knowledge and understanding of the local customs and lifestyle. Secondly, many students do not want to return to their country after graduation because most of them want to seek a more comfortable life and brighter future overseas. This may result in a serious brain-drain and our country will inevitably incur a huge loss of talents.

To this issue, some other students hold a different attitude, arguing that students should go abroad to study. To begin with, it can broaden the student’s horizons. For instance, they get a chance to experience a totally different culture. The knowledge of social customs acquired in the other countries helps them to become more open-minded. Next, there are academic advantages. Students can lean advanced science and technology. They received a different education. The book

resources are more up-to-date. The professors are aware of all the latest development in their fields. Therefore, the standard of teaching is much higher. Moreover, when they finish their study abroad, they will have more choices for their future career. All the above merits contribute to their self-betterment and self-realization.

It is quite understandable that people from different backgrounds put different interpretations on the same issue. For my part, I stand on the latter opinion that while overseas study has its drawbacks, the advantages are more obvious. It can broaden one’s vision. Students have easy access to the first-rate facilities and the latest development in science and technology. In addition, when they finish their study, they have more job opportunities. Therefore, as long as it is financially feasible, an overseas education may do a person better than harm.

(354 words)

Beside a lot of advantages, some people believe that the Internet creates many problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

.In the current society, it is universally believed that the internet has been gaining its popularity at an amazing rate. Some people assert that the internet bring us a lot of benefits while many others argue that its drawbacks should not be ignored. It is quite understandable that people from different backgrounds put different interpretations on the same issue.

Those who favor that the internet has many advantages give their reasons as follows. In the first place, it is obvious that the internet brings us great convenience and efficiency. For example, we can send Emails to our friends in other countries in a few minutes while sending a traditional letter takes us at least a week and costs much. In the second place, it is a well-known fact that we can make friends with people from all parts of world. Apparently, It overcomes the geographical barriers and makes the world smaller. Furthermore, it is true that the internet accelerates the flow of information and spreads education to all corners of the globe. In other words, we can have easy and quick access to the latest information worldwide.

On the other hand, some other people hold a different attitude, argue that the internet has many weaknesses. For one thing, it seems that it can easily lead to psychological problems. For instance, an internet-addicted person tends to be isolated, self-centered and unsociable. For another, it is obvious that there is a sharp rise in the number of cyber crimes. More and more financial crimes such as money laundering are committed via the internet. In addition, it also has negative impacts on young people because there are a lot of obscene and violent contents on line.

There is probably a little bit of truth in both arguments. For my part, I completely agree with the latter view that the internet has more disadvantages than advantages. It gives rise to people’s mental problem. It results in various computer crimes. It is harmful to the growth of the youth. Therefore, something should be done as soon as possible to protect people from negative effects of the internet.

As mass communication and transport continue to grow, societies are becoming more and more alike leading to a phenomenon known as globalization. Some people fear that globalization will inevitably lead to the total loss of cultural identity. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

You should write at least 250 words.

model answer:

Globalisation has become integrated through the global network of trade, transportation, communication and immigration. It is feared by many to eventually bring an end to cultural identity. However, I am convinced that not only will globalization help retain and improve local cultures, but it also will strengthen cultural bonds between distant communities.

First of all, people can realise how they are different from others in distant lands, which may lead to their interest in learning about other cultures. This means every culture will have to preserve and present its unique features such as local cuisine or craftsmanship in order to maintain foreign interest in itself and have something to offer in competition with

other communities. As a result, a sense of cultural identity can be reinforced – even rekindled and restored where it has already been lost.

Secondly, cultures in different parts of the world familiarise themselves with the ceremonies, food and clothes of other people, it is highly likely that they will begin to improve on their own, thus developing more efficient ways of life while retaining their original characteristics.

Finally, although some people might think that the aforementioned “trade” of cultural features can doom the unique identity of a culture, they need to consider that this will not necessarily result in local people abolishing their culture and fully embracing another. Instead, the communication and exchange involved in globalisation can improve understanding and tolerance in the international community, which certainly can help with the conservation of older cultures and their sense of identity.

In conclusion, I think if the positive aspects of globalisation are considered and stressed, it is not likely to pose any threats to the cultural identity of local communities and will instead contribute to it in a variety of ways.

model answer:

Environmental pollution has become a serious problem all over the world. However, we do not usually try to improve our environment. We always use chemical detergents and fertilizer. Also forests have been fatally damaged by deforestation. Some researchers say that if we do not stop devastating the environment, the Earth will be catastrophic 100 years later. To prevent this drastic situation, this essay will suggest what we should do and how the government should solve the problems.

We should use eco-friendly products such as natural detergents or manure rather than using chemical products. Using chemical products has caused fatal water pollution. Water is essential for our everyday life. Therefore, people in the world should have the responsibility to maintain clean water. We should use environmentally friendly products rather than chemical ones. It will help improve our environment.

To reduce air pollution we should use public transportation rather than using our own vehicle. For instance, public transportation can save our money and energy. Moreover, it helps reduce the amount of exhaust fumes in the air. In addition to that, it may be able to relieve traffic jams. If more people use public transportation, it means diminishing the number of cars on the road. Thus, it will reduce the risk of car accidents as well. Then, finally, we should plant many trees. Trees absorb carbon dioxide produced by human activities and make fresh air.

The government must make more investments to improve our environment such as building more purifier factories and developing alternative energy resources. Fossil fuels lead to air pollution. Thus, the government should develop more sustainable energy resources and lower the rate of public transportation charges so that more people can use buses and trains.

In conclusion, improving the environment requires a great deal of efforts. We need to concern about these environmental problems and make considerable efforts to prevent any pollution on the planet. The government should develop alternative energy or new sustainable energy and encourage people to use public transportation more often. The harder we try, the healthier our planet will be.

(344 words)

Whoever controls the media also controls opinions and attitudes of the people and there is little can be done to rectify this.

To what extend do you agree or disagree?

In some countries the media is controlled exclusively by large companies; in other it is the government that has this control. Often, in war situation, one of the first casualties is the media, which is seized by one group or another. This gives some support to the idea that the media is a source of power and control.

Whoever controls the media also has ultimate control over what is published or broadcasted and what is omitted. They can also add a certain prejudice or bias to their coverage of certain news stories depending on their own feelings about the

matter. This is not a new problem, although the issue is perhaps more pressing now that the Internet and play-TV have enabled these messages to be disseminated even further.

However, we should remember that readers have their own ideas and opinions. You can control what is printed but you cannot control the opinions of your readers. I think the only positive here is that, nowadays, people seem to be much more cynical about what they read in the press or hear on the television. In particular, when it comes to the tabloid press, people know that they have to take what they read with a grain of salt. In other words, they read knowing they may be being lied to. Perhaps it is even greater concern that we have become so accepting of this form of censorship.

The only thing that can be done to alter this situation is for the government to regulate the industry so that there is no longer a monopoly on media ownership. This also means that they have to allow and support a totally free press, even if this means the government may be criticised or ridiculed within its pages.

Successful sports professionals can earn a great deal more money than people in other important professions. Some people think is fully justified while others think it is unfair.

Discus both these views and give your own opinion.

Give reason for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Write at least 250 words.

model answer:

As a result of constant media attention, sports professionals in my country have become stars and celebrities, and those at the top are paid huge salaries. Just like movie stars, they live extravagant lifestyles with huge houses and cars.

Many people find their rewards unfair, especially when comparing these super salaries with those of top surgeons or research scientists, or even leading politicians who have the responsibility of governing the country. However, sports salaries are not determined by considering the contribution to society a person makes, or the level of responsibility he or she holds. Instead, they reflect the public popularity of sport in general and level of public support that successful stars can generate. So the notion of ‘fairness’ is not issue.

Those who feel that sports stars’ salaries are justified might argue that the number of professionals with real talent are very few, and the money is recognition of the skills and dedication a person need to be successful. Competition is constant and player is tested every time they perform in their relatively short career. The pressure from the media is intense and there is little privacy out of the spotlight. So all of these factors may justify the huge earnings.

Personally, I think that the amount of money such sports stars make is more justified than the huge earnings of movie stars, but at the same time, it indicates that our society places more value on sport than more essential professions and achievements.

(246 words)

Despite health warnings, a large number of people continue to smoke all over the world.Why should we be concerned about this?What solutions would you suggest?

Smoking is an expensive habit which pollutes the environment and carries serious health risk, yet a third of the men in the world smoke. It is also a sad fact that one in five teenagers take up the habit when they are as young as 11. Of course, there is one interest group, the tobacco industry, which is more than happy with this situation, since its profits depend on our addiction to cigarettes.

These statistics are particularly depressing because the link between smoking and cancer, heart disease and other serious illnesses has been known for many years. We must also remember that apart from harming the individual, smoking represents a huge cost to society. The money we spend on treating smoking-related disease could be used for much better purposes, such as helping to feed the world’s poor or paying for medical research.

So why, despite all the evidence, do people still smoke? The obvious answer is that cigarettes are highly addictive, so that it can be extremely difficult to give up. Another answer is the power of peer pressure, especially amongst young people. In my view, the most important thing is to discourage people from starting to smoke, and we could do this be increasing the tax on tobacco and banning cigarette advertising. I also feel that people who want to quit should be given as much advice and support as possible.

In conclusion, I believe that we should do everything we can to reduce the number of smokers in society. However, it is not enough to provide information about health risks, we also need to use a variety of strategies to tackle the problem.

Children today play very violent games. This must be the reason for the increase in violence and crime in most major cities of the world.

What are your opinions on this?

Nowadays most children regularly play games on a computer or their television. These games have become more violent over the past few years. In fact, many parents worry about this and the effect these games are having on their children. Some are concerned that playing violent games might encourage them to come aggressive in real life. What we need to establish is whether or not this is actually true.

First, it may help to look back at the games that children used to play many years ago before the invention of computers. In those days children would probably have played popular board games such as Monopoly or Chess, or they may have played card games or some type of outdoor sport. These sports or games would probably only have encouraged children to become more competitive rather than violent.

However, throughout history children have always played fighting games with toy or pretend weapons. Even now many parents will buy a toy gun or sword for their child. Why do we never read reports in the media about the impact plastic weapons could have on children? Perhaps this is because the link between play fighting and actual fighting is not very strong.

In conclusion, the way children play games has changed with the times but the ideas behind those games have actually changed very little. Just as playing at soldiers did not increase violence in the past, I believe that playing computer games will not lead to an increase in violence in the future. I think that if we looked more closely at life in our major cities then we would find there are many other possible causes for the increase in crime and violence.

The birth rate in most developed countries is predicted to begin to fall over the next 50 years. By 2030 it is estimated that over one third of the population in most developed countries will be aged 65 and over:

What effects will these predictions have on developed countries if they prove true? What can be done now to deal with this situation?

Nowadays, most people worry about over-population and living crowded cities. However, it is predicted that we will have the opposite problem by the year 2030 when one third of the population will be aged 65 or over and birth rates are predicted to decline. What effect will this have on our society?

By 2030 the percentage of the population aged 65 or older will have risen significantly, to more than 30%. This means that fewer people will be working, and therefore fewer people will be paying income tax. In the future it may be necessary for governments to increase the official retirement age to 70 or even older. When today’s 30-year-olds are in their sixties it is unlikely that they will enjoy the relaxed lifestyle that today’s older generation can expect when they give up work. Government will therefore need to make sure that this older generation is healthy and fit enough to continue working.

However I believe the biggest impact will be on the younger generation. In 2030 the younger generation will need to work much harder to support the large number of older people. If this trend continues then it is possible that our entire culture will change. For example, most marketing companies today try to target the younger generation with their products and advertisements. If the majority of the population is older then this will change and companies will begin to target the older generation instead.

So, what can be done now to prevent these problems? Firstly, I believe that governments of developed countries should find ways to encourage people to have larger families and increase the birth rate. Secondly, I believe that they should encourage migration from developing countries so that the problems of Over-crowding can be solved.

(292 words)

In today’s competitive world, many families find it necessary for both parents go out to work. While some say the children in these families benefit from the additional income, others feel they lack support because of their parents’ absence.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

In the past, a typical family consisted of a father who went out to work and a mother who stayed at home and looked after the children. Nowadays, it is the norm for both parents to work. This situation can affect children both positively and negatively.

Some people think that the children of working parents are in an advantages position were their parents are able to afford more luxuries such as new clothes, video games or mobile phones. Proponents of this view argue that children are able to enjoy and experience more from life due their parents’ extra wealth, for example, by going foreign holidays.

On the other hand, however, there are those who claim that when both parents work, their children do not get enough support and attention; meaning that these children might not do as well at school because there is no one at home to provide support with such things as homework or exam revision. The absence of parents at home could make it easier for children to get involved in such things as drugs or underage drinking.

When I was growing up, both my parents worked and I was always well provided for. On the other hand, I think that it would sometimes have been better if I could have seen more of my parents.

In conclusion, I believe that we cannot change the fact that both parents have to work nowadays, It is not an ideal situation, but if parents make time for their children in the evenings and at the weekends, then the children will not suffer in any way. It must be stated that the extra income generated by both parents working, makes for a much higher standard of living which benefits the whole family.

Woman and men are commonly seen as having different strength and weaknesses. Is it right to exclude males or females from certain professions because of their gender?

There have always been differences in the types of work men and women have done. However, the trend in modern times has been for both men and women to have greater freedom of choice in terms of employment. Some people might say that there is no need to go further. However, in my view, wherever possible, gender equality should be encouraged.

There may indeed be good arguments for allowing certain posts to remain predominantly male or female. Where all-male or all-female groups exist, there may be a need for related posts to be held by men and women respectively. Patients in all-female hospital wards, for example, would probably appreciate having female nurses to look after them. It could also be argued that certain jobs requiring a great deal of physical strength, coal mining or logging, for example, should continue to be done mainly by men.

However, in the vast majority of situations, making occupations more open to both genders has distinct advantages. Men and women can bring slightly different perspectives and approaches to a job. Female police officers, for example, may have a greater understanding of domestic violence and a better range of strategies for dealing with this problem. Male primary school teachers probably have a better understanding of the needs of young boys and can serve as good role models for them.

The changes that result from allowing men into female-dominated occupations and vice versa may be subtle, but they are far-reaching. However, to benefit the most from this development, it is important not to expect males and females to approach work in identical ways.

Recent figures show an increase in violent crime among youngsters under the age of 18. Some psychologists claim that the basic reason for this is that children these days are not getting the social and emotional learning they need from parents and teachers.

To what extend do you agree or disagree with this option?

It does seem to be true that parents find teachers have lost the authority they used to have, especially in the eyes of teenagers. They are no longer seen as models for behaviour: hard work, politeness and other positive qualities are seen as old fashioned. Many young people have no respect for these qualities or the people who represent them. In fact, I think

when young people today are so rebellious that it’s possible that both parents and teachers are afraid to exercise their authority. However, I do not agree that this is the basic reason for the increase in teenage violence.

While I believe it is true that a lack of social and emotional learning contributes to the problem. Other factors are surely involved: economic factors, for example. If a child comes from a poor family and they live in low-quality housing in all undesirable area, this is sure to affect the child, however loving the parents are.

There is also the question of who your friends are. I believe that when you are in your teens your friends have more influence on you than your parents or teachers. At that age, you want to be part of a group, or even a gang, and this might lead to breaking the law in a number of ways.

In conclusion, while I agree that lack of social and emotional learning from parents and teachers is a factor in the growth of teenage violence, I do not believe that it is the only or main cause.

(255 words)

Many people say that the only way to guarantee a good job is to complete a course of university education. Others claim that it is better to start work after school and gain experience in the world of work.

how far do you agree or disagree with the above views?

It is probably true to say that most people believe that a university degree is the only way to get a good job. I think this is true in certain areas, while in other areas, a degree is not as useful.

To begin with, many people have ambitions to become a qualified professional, and there is no doubt that becoming a doctor o lawyer, for example, is only possible with a degree. Another advantage of graduating from university is that it gives you more choices when it comes to choosing a job. Most employers will be more impressed by a candidate who has a degree than they would be by one who only has high school qualification because it shows a certain level of intelligence and education, as well as the commitment and self-discipline that is needed in order to study a degree course for three or four years.

On the other hand, there might be some benefit to starting your career early, especially if your chosen field is one which does not typically require a university education. This would apply to somebody who wants to be a car mechanic, or a fashion designer, for instance, who would not necessary gain anything from going to university. The hands-on experience you gain in your job while others are studying for a degree can give you a distinct advantage. I once read about a man who left school at sixteen and went on to become a wealthy and successful investment broker. He claimed that he had learned all he needed to know by working in his chosen field and he could not have done any better by getting a degree.

So, to conclude, it is possible to get a good job without to university. Having said that, some professions, such as the law, require you to have a degree and as stated above a university degree could potentially open more doors when looking for a job.

As languages such as English, Spanish and Mandarin become more widely spoken, there is a fear that many minority languages may die out. Some countries have taken steps to protect minority languages.

What is your view of this practice?

As the world becomes more integrated, the need for common means of communication is becoming more pressing. Inevitably, speakers of minority languages have been under pressure to speak the languages of more dominant groups, both locally and globally. Some people argue that there is nothing that can or should be done to stop this process. I would suggest that the issue merits more careful consideration.

It is true as the balance of power among group of people throughout history has shifted, languages have arisen, changed, and died out. Even once widely-spoken languages, such as Latin, have disappeared. To some extent, therefore, this process may be inevitable. However, there are examples of communities that have managed to preserve and even revive languages under threat. Irish and Scots Gaelic, for example, have been preserved by government policy on education and broadcast media.

There are, indeed, several benefits to preserving minority languages. Retaining the language of a community often means that other forms of culture are maintained: songs, literature and local traditions. These all contribute to the richness and variety of human culture. Moreover, language helps communities to remain cohesive and to have a strong sense of

identity. This can help people to be strong in adversity. Where this sense of identity and cohesion has been lost, for example among many indigenous communities in North America, problems can follow: low self-esteem, lack of confidence and loss of initiative.

In short, it is possible and in many cases, desirable, to make the effort to preserve minority languages. This can have benefits both for the minority speech community and for society as a whole in terms of cultural richness.

Should parents be obliged to immunise their children against common childhood diseases? Or do individuals have the right to choose not to immunise their children?

What is your view of this practice?

Some people argue that the state does not have the right to make parents immunise their children. However, I feel the question is not whether they should immunise but whether, as members of society, they have the right not to.

Preventative medicine has proved to be the most effective way of reducing the incidence of fatal childhood diseases. As a result of the widespread practice of immunising young children in our society, many lives have been saved and the diseases have been reduced to almost zero.

In previous centuries children died from ordinary illnesses such as influenza and tuberculosis and because few people had immunity, the diseases spread easily. Diseases such as dysentery were the result of poor hygiene but these have long been eradicated since the arrival of good sanitation and clean water. Nobody would suggest that we should reverse this good practice now because dysentery has been wiped out

Serious diseases such as polio and smallpox have also been eradicated through national immunisation programmes. In consequence, children not immunised are far less at risk in this disease-free society than they would otherwise be. Parents choosing not to immunise are relying on the fact that the diseases have already been eradicated. If the number of parents choosing not to immunise increased, there would be a similar increase in the risk of the diseases returning.

Immunisation is not an issue like seatbelts which affects only the individual. A decision not to immunise will have widespread repercussions for the whole of society and for this reason, I do not believe that individuals have the right to stand aside. In my opinion immunisation should be obligatory.

Some people argue that it is more important to have an enjoyable job than to earn a lot of money. Others disagree and think that a good salary leads to a better life.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Everybody knows that you need money to survive, but it is often said that money does not bring happiness. Although the ideal situation may be to have an enjoyable job that also provides a good salary, this is not always possible. It is important to remember that some people might not have a choice of jobs because they did not have the chance of a good education or because they have a large family to support. Nevertheless, I would prefer to have a job that I can enjoy if I could.

On the one hand, life is easier for those who have plenty of money as they can do what they want and do not have to think constantly about whether they can afford something or not. In addition, earning a good salary makes it easier to be healthier because you can eat good food and join a gym.

On the other hand, some people spend large sums of money without thinking about it. However, they could manage with less money and have a better life by taking a job they enjoy or by working fewer hours. I have observed that in families who go on expensive holidays and always have a new car, it is often the father who works such long hours that his children rarely see him. In my opinion, this is not an attractive lifestyle and it would be better if he found a less well paid job that enabled him to spend him to spend more time at home.

To sum up, I think it is more important to have a job you enjoy if you can afford it. In my view, most people need less money than they think because they waste a lot on buying things they do not need.

Travelling in group with a tour guide is the best way to travel.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?.

Nowadays, people have their own preferences about how to travel. Some people prefer to travel alone others prefer to travel in groups with tour guide. I agree that it is the greatest way to travel as a group with a tour guide for several reasons.

First, a tour guide will let people know about the places they will visit and show the best places. Tour guides are specially trained about the local history and significance of all the places at the region. Most of the time, people travelling alone do not know the places to visit and so waste a lot of time trying to find something valuable to see. In addition, tour guides know things about a certain place that are not generally mentioned in books or brochures. Thus, guided tours are the best way in terms of sightseeing in a short time.

Second, travelling in a group can ensure safety. Many parts of the world are quite dangerous to travel alone. There are often people with evil intention waiting to do harm to tourists. For example, when one of my friends once backpacked across Europe by herself, she got in trouble because a homeless person took her passport and wallet. She had to call the embassy and dealt with the situation. In the end she was not able to finish her trip, which could have been a once in a lifetime opportunity for her to spend such quality time with herself. When travelling with tour guides, they can protect their group members from this kind of dangerous situation.

In conclusion, although some people might agree that travelling as a group with a tour guide is not the best idea, I strongly agree with the idea that travelling in the group with the guide is the best decision in terms of great information and safety.

News editors decide what to broadcast on television and what to print in newspapers. What factors do you think influence these decisions? Do we become used to bad news? Would it be better if more good news was reported?

Alternative answer 2:News both in print media and in television should reflect the authentic, unbiased and important news for the audiences and those news play an important role in terms of educating people, informing people about the current world and giving them insight of political and social view. But sadly this is always not the case and news editors are often broadcast and publish biased and politically influenced news that do more harm than good to the society.

There are various reasons for that. First of all the personal views and political biasedness are two important factors that cause this problem. Newspapers and TV news should ideally be two great media to reach the people with the real and authentic news. People greatly rely on these media to get updates of events and current affairs and the impartial and biased news mislead them often. Often political views of editors and their link to a particular political party lead to this problem. It is not uncommon that a chief editor gets appointed to the position by the powerful political party and he is expected to present news in favour of this party. Second, in many countries government impose strict rules on what type of news can be presented to the public and that also causes problems in terms of fair and accurate news presenting.   In many cases money and corruption is involved for such heinous act. Again, many newspapers heavily rely on other renowned newspapers and internet for current news and if the source is corrupted, that leads to the case of printing and broadcasting impartial and misleading news. Personal threat, political reasons, power, g reed, pressure and personal gains, business are the main reasons editors sometimes decide what to broadcast and what to print.

I would not agree with the notion that we are used to bad news as I have witnessed many cases when a good news get more attention and audience than bad news. It’s true that bad news is by their nature is appealing to people, but as a whole we want to know about the true happening. Good or bad, people want to learn the truth. Often people’s attention can be achieved by publishing and broadcasting bad and negative news, but this is now always the truth as events like peach treaty, world up, noble contributions, achievements, good deeds and political positive decision gets more readers and viewers than bad news.

In conclusion, we are not used to bad news and editors do decide which news to be reached to public or not based on their personal, business and political reasons.

Many people are using credit cards or loans to run up huge personal debts that they may be unable to repay. It should therefore be made more difficult for individuals to borrow large amounts of money. What are your opinion on this?Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge and experience.

Recently, there has been considerable discussion of the large personal debts and loans withdrawn by people which cannot be repaid. The implication of this has led some to claim that huge borrowings should be strict but some think it's unfair to do so. I am not in complete accord with the statement but I shall compare and contrast both views first.

On one hand, some think that there must be a strong barrier when the huge amounts are loaned to public. One of the reasons for this idea is to prevent the monetary company from high bad debts, which could lead to bankruptcy. Preventing the unwanted loan could help the bank and other financial companies to grow financially and also helps the country's economy to flourish.

However, there could be a disagreement on the other hand. Credit cards and loans are the special facilities given to the people which helps them to do their daily transactions as well as to run big projects and business at the same time. This undoubtedly helps them to create income.

Moreover, credit cards can be used in several areas, to pay student loans, for instance. It also serves as an emergency tool in case of any accident or hazards. For use of such loans, banks also charge interest which is income for them.

After analyzing the facts, I tend to believe that there shouldn’t be hassled to get credit cards and loans because it serves as a helping hand in public. Although, it can’t be denied that some of the people may be unable to repay it, I suggest the financial institution to make a proper policy such as keeping the collateral or other financial documents before providing loan.

We are seeing a significant increase in online shopping nowadays. What are the advantages of this trend?

Give your own opinion and relevant examples to support your answer.

You should write at least 250 words.

Sample Answer: With the technological advancement and widespread use of computers, smart phones and other hand-held computer devices, people are doing online shopping nowadays more than ever. More store owners are going online with their products and because of the convenient shopping mechanism, customers are opting to this new trends. The advantage of this online shopping facility is huge and there are some drawbacks of it as well.

To mention the advantages, we have to consider the conveniences of both merchant and shoppers. Merchants can run their shops 24/7 and without any utility bill to be paid, employee salary are not required they can reach to a whole new segment of customers. Online shopping sites like e-bay & Amazon have more than several millions of online customers and these two websites can be two great examples of online business potentials. The merchants can reach to the new and potential shoppers with their online offerings beside their physical stores. This is indeed a great prospect for the business owners to expand the business. In fact, going online is no longer an option it has become a must in today’s world.

From the customers’ point of view, online shopping saves their time and money. They no longer have to go to the shops, accept the hassle and spend more to purchase their necessary products. Nowadays all they have to do is visit online shops from their computers or phones compare products and pay online. That’s it! And the quick delivery system would ensure the delivery of the ordered products to the shopper’s doorstep. This is a comprehensive life-style improvement for the online shoppers. They can spend more time at home with family members than spending time in market places. They do not need to carry cash and that’s a better safety in terms of payment towards the purchases.

Among the disadvantages, the first and foremost one is the touch and feel of the product is impossible in online shopping. An online shopper can’t touch the product ad judge the quality of it before making the final decision or purchasing. They have to rely on the images and description of the products and that might often lead to dissatisfactions of the customers. The second threatening issue is the online theft and credit card information hacking that might become an alarming issue soon.

A potential hacker and the malicious computer software worms can steal the sensitive information of an online purchaser and cause numerous troubles to the card owners. From the merchants’ point of view, customers often disagree to pay in case of pay-on-delivery payment option and this is very negative for running a smooth business.

In conclusion, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and with time the online shopping would be the primary mode of shopping for us.

Most education systems rely on examinations to encourage children to study, but as a result, children suffer from too much stress and they never learn to be creative.  Therefore, exams should be abolished.  To what extend do you agree or disagree?

As a method of motivating students to take education seriously, examinations do exert a certain amount of stress on them.  However, this does not affect their creative development and hence, there is no need to abolish examinations.

To start with, unlike common perception, examinations these days are not all about rote learning and memorising, but also encouraging children to research and form their own opinions about various topics.  For example, in language and literature examinations children are often asked about their views about  a novel or poem.  This encourages them to read books more seriously and develop their own perspectives.  Similarly, in science practical examinations, students are required to conduct experiments and arrive at new findings.  Activities like these clearly show that examinations can enhance the creative abilities of children.

Moreover, even if examinations result in a certain level of anxiety or pressure, it should only be considered reasonable as they would inspire students to work harder to have a sense of achievement.  In other words, a fair amount of tension helps children to make greater efforts for achieving higher grades or marks.  Researches have proved that stress can produce favourable chemicals in the body, like adrenalin to help body to aim higher.

On the other hand, examinations do lead to excess stress in certain children, which is mainly due to lack of preparation or pressure from family members or teachers to perform well.  Moreover, a certain amount of rote learning is involved in examinations which can reduce the creativity of children to some extent.  Nonetheless, proper guidance and counselling can help children to handle their exam related anxieties successfully.  Moreover, more innovative ways of conducting tests to reduce the need for memorising can help children to enhance their creative abilities.

In conclusion, it unreasonable to ban examinations because they play a very vital role in helping children to approach studies with greater earnestness.  It also helps to develop their imaginative expressions rather than suppressing them.

Some people think that humans can use animals in any way for their own benefit.  Others, however, believe that people should not use animals in a wrong way.  Discuss both these views and give your opinion.

Man use animals for various purposes, which sometimes can amount to abuse and even cause their death. Many animal right activists have, recently, raised concerns about the ill-treatment of animals by human beings. This essay intends to analyse both sides of this issue in detail.

On the one hand, many believe that man is a superior being and therefore it is justifiable to cause pain and even kill animals for his survival and welfare, especially in scientific experiments and as a means of food and entertainment. For example, many life saving drugs for humans have been tested in animals like guinea pigs before they are is used by man. This has resulted in the invention of many life saving medicines which are essential for man to maintain his health and prolong his life. Similarly, many animals like pigs and chicken are reared and killed for food and elephants and lions are used in circuses to entertain people and make money. Although many consider these to be cruelty to animals, most human beings think that it is essential for man’s well-being.

On the other hand, animal lovers contend that showing cruelty to animals is unjustifiable because it is a violation of animal rights. They also believe that animals experience pain and stress just like human beings and therefore it is cruel to ill-treat them.

Although it may amount to a certain level of cruelty, it seems logical to make use of animals for the needs of man. Even in nature, we see stronger animals attacking and killing weaker ones for their food. Moreover, man greatly benefits from animals, in transportation, farming and scientific experiments.

In conclusion, my suggestion is that it is inevitable to use animals for the benefit of man, but they should minimise animal sufferings in all ways possible. 

In many countries prisons is considered the best way to decrease crime.  However, education is often argued to be more effective way.  Which opinion do you most agree with?

Imprisonment is generally/mostly considered the best way/ideal method to reform/rectify the behavior of criminals and bring down illegal activities/crime in the society. Whereas/However/But, of late, many people are convinced/believe/are of the opinion that education is a better way to do it.  This essay attempts/tries to analyse this issue in detail.

On the one hand, as prisons can deprive a person’s freedom it would dissuade/deter people from committing a criminal offence/illegal activity.  For example, if a criminal activity would deny a young man the freedom to pursue his favourite career or a happy life with his girlfriend, he is likely to resist the temptation of committing a crime.  Moreover, the experience of being confined to a limited space for a certain period of time can act as great deterrent against crime.  

Similarly, a great deal of social disgrace/stigma is attached to being detained in a jail.  For instance, not many people would risk losing their honour/respect before their friends, family and society through imprisonment.

Furthermore, long imprisonment/incarceration can keep compulsive criminals and serial offenders away from the society and indulging in crime.  To explain, psychopaths with criminal tendencies need to be separated from the mainstream of society as they cannot be reformed easily.  All the above points clearly indicate the need for prisons to reduce crime in the society.

On the other hand, educating criminals about the implications of crime and supplementing to their educational and vocational deficiencies/inadequacies can definitely discourage them from committing further crimes to an extent.  However, it can reduce the fear of committing a crime.  Such methods cannot work independently but only as an addition to prison sentence.

In short, imprisonment is the best way to decrease crime rate in the society and other methods including education have proved to less effective or can only work as addition to imprisonment.Museums for many years have been the places of knowledge and cultural exchange.  Nowadays there are more and more resources on the Internet and museums will not be needed in the future. To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Both the internet and museums have great resources for education, research and cultural exchange.  However, the information on the internet has certain serious limitations and can never match or replace museums.

To start with, the materials available on the internet are in digital form and cannot be touched.  Whereas, museums have real objects, that are more useful for students and researchers for education and cultural exchange.  For example, in a historical museum a visitor is able to see the real pieces of ancient materials like coins, artefacts and manuscripts, which are much more useful and interesting than mere digital images.  Similarly, visitors can have a direct experience of real objects of culture, whereas digitally available images are not reliable or tangible.

Furthermore, it is difficult to find out where information is available on the internet because it is poorly organised.  Moreover, it is extremely difficult to choose the right information from the vast ocean of resources.  In contrast, a museum is systematically arranged and reliable.  For instance, in a science museum inventions are chronologically arranged, therefore, visitors can have a clear idea about them.

On the other hand, resources available on the internet are also very useful, in terms of their availability from different parts of the world.  However, it can only act as an addition to museums and can never match them.

In conclusion, museums will definitely continue to have a unique role in preserving information for future generations.  They cannot be replaced by the information available on the internet.

Topic

Nowadays online shopping becomes more popular than in-store shopping. Is it a positive or a negative development? Give your reasons and examples.

Response

Now that we can buy just about anything with a few mouse clicks from the comfort of our home, very few people actually feel the need to venture into brick and mortar stores. There is no denying the fact that online shopping has become more popular than in-store shopping. This trend has both positive and negative aspects.

The huge popularity of online shopping can be attributed to the fact that it makes shopping easier. It saves both time and money. Buyers no longer have to drive all the way to shops to buy things. Also, online stores tend to offer attractive prices probably because they have lower overhead costs. This allows them to sell items for deeply discounted prices. This can lead to major cost benefits for shoppers. In addition, online shopping makes it easy to buy things from any part of the world. Even if an item is not available in your country, you can buy it from online stores. Online shopping also allows you to compare prices before hitting the purchase button.

On the flip side, the ease of online shopping has made many people compulsive shoppers. Most of us spend lots of time on the internet every day. And while we are on the internet, we get bombarded with numerous advertisements. For a compulsive shopper, this is a good reason to splurge. The fact that online shopping encourages us to buy things that we do not need or use cannot be denied. This can lead to debts. Also, there are security concerns. When you buy things online, you run a small risk of getting your financial information exploited by hackers. Of course, good anti-virus and anti-malware programs can offer a great deal of protection. But almost every week, we hear about data breaches at major online retailers.

To conclude, online shopping has several advantages and disadvantages. However, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Of course, the shopper has to exercise some common sense and keep their device free of malware if they want to enjoy the benefits of online shopping.

In conclusion, developments in IT have brought many benefits, yet I believe developments relating to new technology are likely to produce many negative effects in the future that must be addressed if we are to avoid damaging impacts to individuals and society

:

The last two decades have seen enormous changes in the way people's lives are affected by IT, with many advances in this field. However, while these technological advances have brought many benefits to the world, it can be argued that these developments in IT will result in more negative impacts than postive.

To begin, email has made communication, especially abroad, much simpler and faster, resulting in numerous benefits for commerce and business. Furthermore, the World Wide Web means that information on every conceivable subject is now available to us. For example, people can access news, medical advice, online education courses and much more via the internet. It is evident that these improvements have made life far easier and more convenient for large numbers of people and will continue to do so for decades to come.

Nevertheless, the effects of this new technology have not all been beneficial. For example, many people feel that the widespread use of email is destroying traditional forms of communication such as letter writing, telephone and face-to-face conversation. This could result in a decline in people's basic ability to socialize and interact with each other on a day-to-day basis.

In addition, the large size of the Web has meant that it is nearly impossible to regulate and control. This has led to many concerns regarding children accessing unsuitable websites and viruses. Unfortunately, this kind of problem might even get worse in the future at least until more regulated systems are set up.

In conclusion, developments in IT have brought many benefits, yet I believe developments relating to new technology are likely to produce many negative effects in the future that must be addressed if we are to avoid damaging impacts to individuals and society.

(287 words)

Some of the methods used in advertising are unethical and unacceptable in today’s society.

To what extent do you agree with this view?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

You should write at least 250 words.

Essay for IELTS Model Answer

The world that we live in today is dominated by advertising. Adverts are on television, on the World Wide Web, in the street and even on our mobile phones. However, many of the strategies used to sell a product or service can be considered immoral or unacceptable.

To begin with, the fact that we cannot escape from advertising is a significant cause for complaint. Constant images and signs wherever we look can be very intrusive and irritating at times. Take for example advertising on the mobile phone.  With the latest technology mobile companies are now able to send advertising messages via SMS to consumers' phones whenever they choose. Although we expect adverts in numerous situations, it now seems that there are very few places we can actually avoid them.

A further aspect of advertising that I would consider unethical is the way that it encourages people to buy products they may not need or cannot afford. Children and young people in particular are influenced by adverts showing the latest toys, clothing or music and this can put enormous pressure on the parents to buy these products.

In addition, the advertising of tobacco products and alcohol has long been a controversial issue, but cigarette adverts have only recently been banned in many countries. It is quite possible that alcohol adverts encourage excessive consumption and underage drinking, yet restrictions have not been placed on this type of advertising in the same way as smoking.

It is certainly true to say that advertising is an everyday feature of our lives. Therefore, people are constantly being encouraged to buy products or services that might be too expensive, unnecessary or even unhealthy. In conclusion, many aspects of advertising do appear to be morally wrong and are not acceptable in today's society.

Currently there is a trend towards the use of alternative forms of medicine. However, at best these methods are ineffective, and at worst they may be dangerous.

To what extent do you agree with this statement?

IELTS Sample Essay Model Answer

Alternative medicine is not new. It is accepted that it pre-dates conventional medicine and it is still used by many people all over the world. I am unconvinced that it is dangerous, and feel that both alternative and conventional medicine can be useful.

There are several reasons why the conventional medical community is often dismissive of alternatives.  Firstly, there has been little scientific research into such medicine, so there is a scarcity of evidence to support the claims of their supporters. Furthermore, people often try such treatment because of recommendations from friends, and therefore come to the therapist with a very positive attitude, which may be part of the reason for the cure. Moreover, these therapies are usually only useful for long-term, chronic conditions. Acute medical problems, such as accidental injury, often require more conventional methods.

On the other hand, there remain strong arguments for the use of alternatives.  Despite the lack of scientific proof, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that these therapies work. In addition, far from being dangerous, they often have few or no side effects, so the worst outcome would be no change. One of the strongest arguments for the effectiveness of alternative therapies in the West is that, whilst conventional medicine is available without charge, many people are prepared to pay considerable sums for alternatives. If they were totally unhelpful, it would be surprising if this continued.

I strongly believe that conventional medicine and alternative therapies can and should coexist. They have different strengths, and can both be used effectively to target particular medical problems. The best situation would be for alternative therapies to be used to support and complement conventional medicine.

(280 words)

Government investment in the arts, such as music and theatre, is a waste of money. Governments must invest this money in public services instead.

To what extent do you agree with this statement?

These days, the government spends a large part of its budget not only on public services, but also the arts. Although I agree that it is important to spend money on public services, I do not think spending on the arts is a waste of money.

There are several reasons for spending a significant amount of the government budget on public services. First and foremost, public services are the things such as hospitals, roads and schools, and these things determine the quality of life that most of us will have. For example, if the government does not spend enough money on hospitals, the health of our society may decline. Similarly, if not enough money is spent on schools, our children may not be properly educated.

Also, it will be the poor in our society that will be affected more if we do not spend enough on these things because they are the ones more dependent on such services.

However, this does not mean that the arts should be completely neglected. To begin, it is difficult for many arts institutions to generate much profit, so without some help from the government, many theaters and other such places may have to close. Moreover, the arts also have an important impact on our quality of life. Many people get great pleasure in going to see music and theatre performances so it is important that the government assists such institutions so that they can continue to provide entertainment to the public.

To sum up, there are clear benefits of ensuring a large amount of investment goes into public services as this influences the quality of life for nearly all of us. That said, I do not believe spending money on the arts is a waste of money as this too provides important benefits.

(299 words)

In order to solve traffic problems, governments should tax private car owners heavily and use the money to improve public transportation.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a solution?

Traffic congestion in many cities around the world is severe. One possible solution to this problem is to impose heavy taxes on car drivers and use this money to make public transport better. This essay will discuss the benefits and drawbacks of such a measure.

One of the first benefits of such a measure is that the heavy taxes would discourage car owners from using their cars because it would become very expensive to drive. This would mean that they would begin to make use of public transport instead, thus reducing traffic problems and pollution as well. Another benefit would be that much more use would be made of public transport if it was improved. It is often the case that public transport in cities is very poor. For example, we often see old buses and trains that people would rather not use. High taxes would generate enough money to make the necessary changes.

Nevertheless, there are drawbacks to such a solution. First and foremost, this would be a heavy burden on the car drivers. At present, taxes are already high for a lot of people, and so further taxes would only mean less money at the end of the month for most people who may have no choice but to drive every day. In addition, this type of tax would likely be set at a fixed amount. This would mean that it would hit those with less money harder, whilst the rich could likely afford it. It is therefore not a fair tax.

To conclude, this solution is worth considering to improve the current situation, but there are advantages and disadvantages of introducing such a policy.

Overpopulation of urban areas has led to numerous problems.

Identify one or two serious ones and suggest ways that governments and individuals can tackle these problems.

Many countries of the world are currently experiencing problems caused by rapidly growing populations in urban areas, and both governments and individuals have a duty to find ways to overcome these problems.

Overpopulation can lead to overcrowding and poor quality housing in many large cities. Poorly heated or damp housing could cause significant health problems, resulting in illness, such as bronchitis or pneumonia. Another serious consequence of overcrowding is a rising crime rate as poor living conditions may lead young people in particular to take desperate measures and turn to crime or drugs.

In terms of solutions, I believe the government should be largely responsible. Firstly, it is vital that the state provides essential housing and healthcare for all its citizens. Secondly, setting up community projects to help foster more community spirit and help keep young people off the street is a good idea. For example, youth clubs or evening classes for teenagers would keep them occupied. Finally, more effective policing of inner city areas would also be beneficial.

Naturally, individuals should also act responsibly to address these problems, and the motivation to do this would hopefully arise if the measures described above are put into place by the government. This is because it will encourage people to have more pride in their own community and improve the situation.

Therefore, it is clear that the problems caused by overpopulation in urban areas are very serious. Yet if governments and individuals share a collective responsibility, then it may well become possible to offer some solutions.

(254 words)

As people live longer and longer, the idea of cloning human beings in order to provide spare parts is becoming a reality. The idea horrifies most people, yet it is no longer mere science fiction.

To what extent do you agree with such a procedure?

Have you any reservations?

The cloning of animals has been occurring for a number of years now, and this has now opened up the possibility of cloning humans too. Although there are clear benefits to humankind of cloning to provide spare body parts, I believe it raises a number of worrying ethical issues.

Due to breakthroughs in medical science and improved diets, people are living much longer than in the past. This, though, has brought with it problems. As people age, their organs can fail so they need replacing. If humans were cloned, their organs could then be used to replace those of sick people. It is currently the case that there are often not enough organ donors around to fulfil this need, so cloning humans would overcome the issue as there would then be a ready supply.

However, for good reasons, many people view this as a worrying development. Firstly, there are religious arguments against it. It would involve creating another human and then eventually killing it in order to use its organs, which it could be argued is murder. This is obviously a sin according to religious texts. Also, dilemmas would arise over what rights these people have, as surely they would be humans just like the rest of us. Furthermore, if we have the ability to clone humans, it has to be questioned where this cloning will end. Is it then acceptable for people to start cloning relatives or family members who have died?

To conclude, I do not agree with this procedure due to the ethical issues and dilemmas it would create. Cloning animals has been a positive development, but this is where it

A growing number of people feel that animals should not be exploited by people and that they should have the same rights as humans, while others argue that humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research.

Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people believe that animals should be treated in the same way humans are and have similar rights, whereas others think that it is more important to use them as we desire for food and medical research. This essay will discuss both points of view.

With regard to the exploitation of animals, people believe it is acceptable for several reasons. Firstly, they think that humans are the most important beings on the planet, and everything must be done to ensure human survival. If this means experimenting on animals so that we can fight and find cures for diseases, then this takes priority over animal suffering. Furthermore, it is believed by some that animals do not feel pain or loss as humans do, so if we have to kill animals for food or other uses, then this is morally acceptable.

However, I do not believe these arguments stand up to scrutiny. To begin, it has been shown on numerous occasions by secret filming in laboratories via animal rights groups that animals feel as much pain as humans do, and they suffer when they are kept in cages for long periods. In addition, a substantial amount of animal research is done for cosmetics, not to find cures for diseases, so this is unnecessary. Finally, it has also been proven that humans can get all the nutrients and vitamins that they need from green vegetables and fruit. Therefore, again, having to kill animals for food is not an adequate argument.

To sum up, although some people argue killing animals for research and food is ethical, I would argue there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case, and, therefore, steps must be taken to improve the rights of animals.

(Words 290)

Examine the arguments in favour of and against animal experiments, and come to a conclusion on this issue.

Issues related to animal experimentation are frequently discussed these days, particularly in the media. It is often said that animals should not be used in testing because it is cruel and unnecessary.  This essay will examine the arguments for and against animal testing.

On the one hand, the people who support these experiments say that we must do tests on animals.  For instance, many famous lifesaving drugs were invented in this way, and animal experiments may help us to find more cures in the future. Indeed, possibly even a cure for cancer and AIDS.  Furthermore, the animals which are used are not usually wild but are bred especially for experiments. Therefore, they believe it is not true that animal experiments are responsible for reducing the number of wild animals on the planet.

On the other hand, others feel that there are good arguments against this.  First and foremost, animal experiments are unkind and cause animals a lot of pain. In addition, they feel that many tests are not really important, and in fact animals are not only used to test new medicines but also new cosmetics, which could be tested on humans instead.  Another issue is that sometimes an experiment on animals gives us the wrong result because animals’ bodies are not exactly the same as our own. As a consequence, this testing may not be providing the safety that its proponents claim.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion, on balance, that the benefits do not outweigh the disadvantages, and testing on animals should not continue.  Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this.

(Words 278)

Do the dangers derived from the use of chemicals in food production and preservation outweigh the advantages

Most foods that are purchased these days in small stores and supermarkets have chemicals in them as these are used to improve production and ensure the food lasts for longer. However, there are concerns that these have harmful effects.  In my opinion, the potential dangers from this are greater than the benefits we receive.

There are several reasons why chemicals are placed in food. Firstly, it is to improve the product to the eye, and this is achieved via the use of colourings which encourage people to purchase food that may otherwise not look tempting to eat. Another reason is to preserve the food. Much of the food we eat would not actually last that long if it were not for chemicals they contain, so again this is an advantage to the companies that sell food as their products have a longer shelf life.

From this evidence, it is clear to me that the main benefits are, therefore, to the companies and not to the customer. Although companies claim these food additives are safe and they have research to support this, the research is quite possibly biased as it comes from their own companies or people with connections to these companies. It is common to read reports these days in the press about possible links to various health issues such as cancer. Food additives have also been linked to problems such as hyperactivity in children.

To conclude, despite the fact that there are benefits to placing chemicals in food, I believe that these principally help the companies but could be a danger to the public. It is unlikely that this practice can be stopped, so food must be clearly labeled and it is my hope that organic products will become more readily available at reasonable prices to all.

According to a recent study, the more time people use the Internet, the less time they spend with real human beings. Some people say that instead of seeing the Internet as a way of opening up new communication possibilities world- wide, we should be concerned about the effect this is having on social interaction.

How far do you agree with this opinion?

It is evident that, at present, people are spending a considerable amount of time on the Internet, and thus spending less time with real people. I strongly agree that although this use of the Internet has greatly increased the level of communication available, it has also had detrimental effects on the amount and type of social interaction that takes place.

The benefits of the Internet in terms of increased communication are clear, with people connected across the globe. In the past, communication was only possible by phone or mail, which entailed time and expense. It also usually meant just keeping in contact with those people already known to you. With the internet, this has changed dramatically. Email and social networking sites such as Facebook and MSN have created online communities that are global in scale, and they have fostered communication between people and countries that we would not have thought possible in the not too distant past.

That said, there is no doubt in my mind that this has had negative impacts on social interaction. People, especially the younger generation, spend hours of their time online, chatting and on forums. Although this can be beneficial, it is certainly not the same as real interaction with human beings and does not involve the same skills. It is important that children have and maintain real friendships in order to develop their own interpersonal skills. Not only this, it can also have negative effects on local communities if people are spending most of their time communicating online and not mixing in their neighbourhoods, and possibly lead to feelings of isolation for those individuals who do not have a ‘real’ person to turn to in times of need.

To conclude, I believe that the internet has undoubtedly been beneficial, but there are good reasons to be concerned about social interaction in our societies. It is therefore important that we maintain a balance between our online life and our contact with real human beings.

Global warming is one of the most serious issues that the world is facing today.

What are the causes of global warming and what measures can governments and individuals take to tackle the issue?

Probably the most worrying threat to our planet at the present time is global warming. This essay will examine the reasons why global warming is occurring and discuss some possible solutions.

The predominant factors resulting in the warming of the earth are the emissions of CO2 and deforestation. CO2, which damages the ozone layer, comes from several sources, but the most problematic are those coming from the burning of fossil fuels from power plants.   This releases thousands of tones of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Another cause of these emissions is the burning of gasoline for transportation, which continues to increase because of our demand for cars and also our increasing worldwide consumption, resulting in an increasing need to transport goods. Also, forests store large amounts of carbon, so deforestation is causing larger amounts of CO2 to remain in the atmosphere.

Nevertheless, there are potential ways to solve these problems, or at least reduce the effects. Firstly, governments need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and promote alternatives. Plant-derived plastics, biodiesel, wind power and solar power are all things that are a step in the right direction, but governments need to enforce the limits on CO2 emissions for the polluting industries in their countries for these to be effective. Also, individuals can play a part by making lifestyle changes. People should try to buy cars with the best fuel economy, and only use their car when really necessary. They can also switch to energy companies that use renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. Finally, small things like buying energy efficient light bulbs, turning off electricity in the house, and planting trees in the garden can help.

To conclude, although global warming is a serious issue, there are steps that governments and individuals can take to reduce its effects. If we are to save our planet, it is important that this is treated as a priority for all concerned.

Air traffic is increasingly leading to more noise, pollution, and airport constuction. One reason for this is the growth in low-cost passenger flights, often to holiday destinations.

Some people say that government should try to reduce air traffic by taxing it more heavily.

Do you agree or disagree?

Over recent years there has been an enormous increase in the amount of air traffic around the world resulting in various problems, and a major cause of this has been the growth of low-cost airlines.  Although some people believe that taxes should be increased for air travel, I disagree.

Those that support taxing airlines believe that this will result in a reduction in this type of travel and thus solve the problems of pollution, noise and construction. This is because a tax would make the cost of travelling more expensive, which will, they claim, lead to a decrease in demand.  Proponents of this solution believe that taxes are fair because everyone has to pay them and it is a workable solution that will have the additional bonus of providing an income for the government.

However, there are a number of reasons why this is not the right course of action.  Firstly, a tax is not fair because it will adversely affect people on lower incomes.  Such a tax would have to be a fixed amount paid equally whether you are rich or poor, which means that those on lower incomes would find it more difficult to travel, but it would likely have little effect on the lives of those with a higher income.  In addition, such a tax would not work.   For example, we have seen taxes increase in most countries on cars, but this has had little affect, with car use continuing to grow. 

To sum up, it is evident that introducing heavy taxes on air travel is not fair or workable.  If we continue to explore alternatives, we can continue to enjoy the benefits that air travel offers.

(280 Words)

Nowadays many people have access to computers on a wide basis and a large number of children play computer games.

What are the positive and negative impacts of playing computer games and what can be done to minimize the bad effects?

Access to computers has increased significantly over recent decades, and the number of children playing games on computers has increased too. This essay will consider the positive and negative impacts of this and discuss ways to mitigate against the potential negative effects.

With regards to the positive effects, playing computers games can develop children’s cognitive skills.  Many popular games require abstract and high level thinking skills in order to win, skills that may not be taught at school. For example, children need to follow instructions, solve complex problems and use logic in many of the games that are currently popular.  Such experience will be beneficial to a child’s progression into an adult.

However, concerns have been raised about the prolific use of computer games by children, much of this related to the violence they contain. The problem is that in many of the games children are rewarded for being more violent, and this violence is repeated again and again. For instance, many games involve children helping their character to kill, kick, stab and shoot. This may lead to increased aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviours. 

In order to minimize these negative impacts, parents need to take certain steps. Firstly, some video games are rated according their content, so parents must check this and ensure their children are not allowed to have access to games that are unsuitable.  Parents can also set limits on the length of time games are played. Finally, parents should also take an active interest in the games their children are playing so they can find out how they feel about what they are observing.

To sum up, there are benefits of computer games, but there are disadvantages too. However, if parents take adequate precautions, the severity of these negative impacts can be avoided.  

(296 Words)

Governments should be responsible for funding and controlling scientific research rather than private organizations.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Scientific Research Essay - Model Answer

Undertaking scientific research is imperative if countries want to progress and compete in a globalized world. However, the funding and controlling of this research remains a contentious issue. In my opinion, the government should have the predominant responsibility for this.

One of the first issues is the knowledge that we gain from research. If governments are responsible then they are driven by the need to make advances in knowledge in order to improve people’s lives. This is because they are accountable to the public and the research is paid for by taxes. On the other hand, private organizations are driven by profit. This may mean that some research that could be valuable to society may not begin because there is no monetary gain.

Another disadvantage related to this is the research process. When the funding for research comes from the same organization that can be expected to gain from a favorable outcome, there is a strong potential for biased results. Taking drugs companies as an example, governments usually require rigorous trials for new drugs that can take many years. The companies have large amounts of money invested in such research and the need for positive results is paramount. It is difficult for a scientist to remain impartial in these circumstances. However, if this is controlled and funded by governments, their accountability means that such conflicts of interest are less likely to occur.

On balance, I would argue that although it is not realistic to remove all opportunities for privately funded research, governments should have the main responsibility for the monitoring and controlling of this. Strong checks and balances need to be in place to ensure future research is ethical and productive.

(281 Words)

Smoking not only harms the smoker, but also those who are nearby. Therefore, smoking should be banned in public places.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Medical studies have shown that smoking not only leads to health problems for the smoker, but also for people close by. As a result of this, many believe that smoking should not be allowed in public places. Although there are arguments on both sides, I strongly agree that a ban is the most appropriate course of action.

Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons. Firstly, they say that passive smokers make the choice to breathe in other people’s smoke by going to places where it is allowed. If they would prefer not to smoke passively, then they do not need to visit places where smoking is permitted. In addition, they believe a ban would possibly drive many bars and pubs out of business as smokers would not go there anymore. They also argue it is a matter of freedom of choice. Smoking is not against the law, so individuals should have the freedom to smoke where they wish.

However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban. First and foremost, it has been proven that tobacco consists of carcinogenic compounds which cause serious harm to a person’s health, not only the smoker. Anyone around them can develop cancers of the lungs, mouth and throat, and other sites in the body. It is simply not fair to impose this upon another person. It is also the case that people’s health is more important than businesses. In any case, pubs and restaurants could adapt to a ban by, for example, allowing smoking areas .

In conclusion, it is clear that it should be made illegal to smoke in public places. This would improve the health of thousands of people, and that is most definitely a positive development.

Nowadays, families are not as close as in the past and a lot of people have become used to this.

Why is this happening?

Do the advantages of this trend outweigh the drawbacks?

There has been a trend over recent decades for families to become less close than they were in the past and this situation is largely accepted in society. This essay will discuss the reasons for this and examine the benefits and drawbacks of this development.

One of the first reasons for a decline in the closeness of families is connected to the busy lifestyles that we now lead. Most people are having to work longer hours and often both parents work, so they simply do not have as much time to spend with each other as they did in the past. Another factor is the materialistic and consumer driven culture we now live in, which has led to less value being placed on family relationships. Modern technology also means that people are more interested in their online life than interacting with their family in their free time.

It could be argued that this has benefits. If people are not so close with their family, they are free to pursue their own dreams and aspirations, and to focus on improving their own lifestyle. However, I believe that there are far more negative outcomes. The most important factors leading to a fulfilled and happy life are emotional security and comfort. Without these we are in danger of feeling lost. It is a difficult world we live in and we need the support of people close to us to cope with modern life. We are seeing a rise in mental health problems in many countries and this may well be a factor in this.

To conclude, busy modern lifestyles, changing cultural values and modern technology are causing families to become less close. We should try to halt this trend as it has more negative than positive outcomes.

Some people think that the main factors influencing a child’s development these days are things such as television, friends, and music. Others believe that the family still remains more important.

Discuss both opinions and give your opinion.

While parents obviously play a major role in the way that their child develops as they get older, many people believe that social factors outside of the family now influence children much more. This essay will examine both sides of the argument.

There is no doubt that there are factors external to the family that significantly impact on a child’s development.  For example, there is television and the internet. Children these days have access to these much more than they used to in the past, and they will pick up language and see things that will teach them about life. Friends also have an important influence as a child will often copy peers that they admire and respect. This could be positive behaviour but it could also be negative, such as smoking or taking drugs.

Ultimately, however, it is family who have the most important impact. Children spend nearly all of their time with their family, especially in their early years. They develop their confidence, socialisation skills, morals, values and views on life through their interaction with them. Proof of the importance of this can be seen in the differences between some children. Those that grow up in a dysfunctional home often eventually have problems themselves, whilst those that are brought up in a warm and close environment end up more confident and secure in adult life.

To conclude, it is the family that can provide a supportive, secure, and nurturing environment, which is crucial to the way in which a child becomes an adult. Although it is clear that social factors play a part, I would argue that it is the former that is the most important.

It has been claimed that workers over 50 are not responsive to rapidly changing ideas in the modern workplace and that for this reason younger workers are to be preferred.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people believe that due to the rapid changes occurring in modern work places, it is better to employ younger than older people. I do not believe that this is the case.

One argument in support of younger employees is that older employees could be more set in their ways and potentially against any change. To an extent this may be true, but there are many flexible and intelligent workers over 50, while there are inflexible and narrow-minded younger ones. Attitude towards change is a result not of age but of personality type.

That said, physical changes occurring with age could mean certain jobs are more suited to a younger person. For instance, psychologists seem to be in agreement that memory declines with age for people not remaining mentally active. In high-tech industries such as computer programming, where it is so important to be able to work with so much information, numbers and calculations, being younger may be an advantage.

However, older workers have a wide range of other positive attributes that they can bring to their working environment. Generally, they have more work experience than those who are younger. In addition, as can be seen with the trend of many department stores in the UK to take on older people, they are seen to be more reliable and respectful. These are important in any kind of working environment.

In conclusion, therefore, there is not the evidence to support employing young people as opposed to those over 50. It would seem that a mix of the best qualities of old and young is preferential in order to ensure the most productive environment evolves.

Every one of us should become a vegetarian because eating meat can cause serious health problems.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Vegetarianism is becoming more and more popular for many people, particularly because of the harm that some people believe meat can cause to the body. However, I strongly believe that it is not necessary for everybody to be a vegetarian.

Vegetarians believe that meat is unhealthy because of the diseases it has been connected with. There has been much research to suggest that red meat is particularly bad, for example, and that consumption should be limited to eating it just a few times a week to avoid such things as cancer. Meats can also be high in saturated fats so they have been linked to health problems such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

However, there are strong arguments for eating meat. The first reason is that as humans we are designed to eat meat, which suggests it is not unhealthy, and we have been eating meat for thousands of years. For example, cavemen made hunting implements so that they could kill animals and eat their meat. Secondly, meat is a rich source of protein which helps to build muscles and bones. Vegetarians often have to take supplements to get all the essential vitamins and minerals. Finally, it may be the case that too much meat is harmful, but we can easily limit the amount we have without having to cut it out it out of our diet completely.

To sum up, I do not agree that everyone should turn to a vegetarian diet. Although the overconsumption of meat could possibly be unhealthy, a balanced diet of meat and vegetables should result in a healthy body.

(264 words)

These days, many children have difficulty paying attention and concentrating in their classes at school.

What are the reasons for this?

How can it be dealt with?

Teachers are increasingly finding that their pupils do not pay full attention or concentrate properly during class time. This essay will examine the reasons for this and suggest some possible solutions.

One of the reasons for this is that teachers now lack the freedom to discipline children. In the past, teachers could use any methods they felt appropriate to control pupils in their class, even if this meant physical punishment. However, the balance has now changed, with children aware that there are limits to what a teacher can do and without this respect they do not concentrate if they do not want to. There have, for example, been cases were pupils have sued teachers for disciplining them too harshly. Children should of course not be abused, but teachers must be given more power to use the methods that they think appropriate to control the class without fear of recrimination.

Another factor may be the diet of children. Research has widely reported that the additives in a lot of the snacks and carbonated drinks that children drink regularly can cause behavioural changes such as hyperactivity. This may lead to a lack of ability to concentrate in class. To prevent this, schools must make sure that these snacks are not available at the school. Parents have a part to play as well, and they must ensure that their children are not given too much of these types of snacks at home.

To conclude, children may have difficulty paying attention in class because of a lack of discipline in schools and additives from snacks. However, the solutions are to give more power back to teachers and to limit the availability of certain foods.

In many parts of the world today there is a profitable market for products which lighten or whiten people’s skin.

Outline the reasons for using such products and discuss what effects they have in terms of health and society.

In many countries, particularly places like Asia, skin whitening products are incredibly popular and provide huge profits for the companies involved in their sale. This essay will examine the reasons why people use these products and the effects this has on people’s health and on society.

The principal reason that people use skin whitening products is because whiter skin is seen to be more desirable than darker skin. To understand why, we need to firstly look at history. In ancient times, those people of a higher status tended to stay indoors, whilst people of a lower status worked outside, usually farming. As a result, those people who were indoors had much lighter skin, which means that whiter skin is now associated with having a higher status than dark skin. Another reason, which is partly related to this, is the desire for the ‘Western’ look. For example, plastic surgery to creat western eyelids and noses is common in Asia, and the white skin is part of this. These beliefs and images are also perpetuated in the media, with adverts showing people with white skin as more successful and attractive.

However, despite the fact that having whiter skin may improve a person’s self-esteem, these products can have negative effects. Regarding health, there are reports that people are harming their skin permanently as some products bought over the counter have prescription-strength ingredients. For instance, some contain steroids or toxins which can severely damage the skin and other parts of the body. In terms of society, there are also detrimental effects. Such behaviour perpetuates the belief that ‘white’ is better than ‘black’, and thus those with darker skin may experience discrimination.

In conclusion, people use whitening products due to the fact that white skin, usually through the media, is portrayed as more desirable.  However, steps should be taken to change this image as the drawbacks of this are clear, with potentially dangerous consequences for people’s future health and society as a whole.

(Agreement: Parents are the best teachers) ‘Whether parents are our best teachers or not’ is a never-ending debate and people are divided both in favour and against this argument. Both have a very strong contribution and influence on a child’s learning but in my opinion parents overtake the teachers in terms of teaching their children.

First of all I would like to point out that a teacher is not merely a person who takes a text book and read texts from there to a student. Rather a teacher is someone who devotes his/her times to teach someone everything that someone needs to know to advance to next step. Morality, intricacies of life, subject matter knowledge, art, science, history, value of time etc. are something that can’t be taught through academic books and a good teacher is someone who teaches someone these all.

Now that we know the true responsibility of a teacher, we can easily compare our parents and teachers. The things that we learn from our parents are far more important than what we learn from our teachers. I am not denying the invaluable knowledge we learn from our teachers through our academic years, but what we learn from our parents are incomparable. We learn to survive, talk, and distinguish well from bad, values of life, morality and such important other things from our parents. We are the true reflection of our parents and our characters are shaped from their personality and behaviours. Later the teachers help us to enhance our knowledge, horizon and our view of life but the very foundation and ground are made by our parents.

The parents sacrifice so many things of their life just to ensure a better life for us and nothing in this whole world could even be compared with their sacrifice for us. Think of student who is unable to pay his/her monthly school fees would be cast away from the school and the beloved teachers would scarcely be there to help him/her. On the other hand the parents would always be there with their every possible effort to help the child.

In summary, the things we learn from our teachers are important for our lives and with those valuable lessons and knowledge we prepare for the future but the things we learn from our parents shapes who we are, who we become and their contribution is much more important compared to the contribution of the traditional academic teachers and that’s why in my opinion parents are best teachers.

World history suggests that violence and conflict were more evident under male leadership than under female leadership. So, for peace to prevail, female leadership can be considered as a better option than male leadership

Model Answer 1:(Disagreement: Denied the fact that violence and conflict were less under female leadership)

The human history has been violence and conflict stricken since the beginning of the human existence. If we look back in history or to the world around us, we see wars, conflict, power struggles and revolutions, peach making kings, prudent emperor as well as ruthless ruler. History also reveals that society has always been predominantly male dominated, with leaders and rulers mainly being men. It is, hence, easy to blame the ruler and put the responsibility of atrocities on the shoulders of men. But a deeper perspective always reveals to historians that conflict is a generic tendency of humans. So peace being disturbed is not the liability of men only, but humans in general, and a power shift, from men to women, is destined to be futile in prevailing peace.

Most of the women who are known to be great till date, e.g. Queen Isabella of Spain, Queens Marry, a.k.a. Bloody Marry, Victoria, and Elizabeth of Britain, all have ruled over vast spectrum of power. And they often have done so ruthlessly, achieving goals with an iron hand. They have waged wars that are barely comparable to only few of those devised by men. These women are not anomalies of history, but examples from numerous others, who went beyond the boundaries of gender in the path of prevailing in power while expending peace whenever they deemed it to be expendable.

The two greatest wars of modern history, World Wars I & II, have taught us that wars are impersonal. Race, religion, nationality, sex are only pretense to the universally human lust for power. It is true that during both the global conflicts men were in the rulers’ thrones. But it will be foolish to say that Margaret Thatcher, the famed Iron Lady who spared no rod against a minnow enemy in the war of Falkland, would be more peacefully diplomatic than how the greats Winston Churchill and Franklyn D. Roosevelt had been tackling the Axis of Hitler.

The gender issue is only a determinant in the battle of the sexes, not the battles among nations and peoples. It is therefore impertinent, if not irrational, to conclude that world conflicts result from the rule of a particular

gender and the finer sex would do a better job at prevailing peace if selectively put at the helm of human nations.

(Approximately 388 words)N.B: You should be able to pick up different points from this essay and organize your answer in your own style.(This model answer has been prepared by the site developer. However, please note that this is just one example out of many possible answers.) Alternative Answer 2:(In favour of the argument that violence and conflict were less under female leadership) Though some people argue that war and conflicts among nations and within a territory is impersonal regardless of men and women leaders, the history suggest that world saw less violence, war and conflicts under female leader. Considering this in in mind I suggest the idea that female leadership can be considered for a better world.

The major World War, conflicts among nations, civil wars mostly caused by the male ego, assassinations and conflicts of interests among men. Very few female leaders contributed taking decision to have war with other nations in their period of ruling a country. Sometimes people often mention the Trojan War and convict a female as the main reason of this reason. But the fact is, it is not even a historically approved war and its root lies more in mythology than in evidence. And even if it was true, female leaders were not even remotely involved deciding to start the war.  Though the number of male rulers throughout the history is much more compared to the number of female leaders and very few major wars could be related to the decision or action taken by women.

Women are naturally mild-hearted and avoid conflicts and wars by all means. They are more caring and less violent by their prototypes and that make them to be better leaders in terms of serving people. The leader who is caring and has the mentality to serve people would naturally be a good leader and women are better candidates than men in this regards.

In summary, the idea of female leadership in terms of avoiding wars and serving nations better is indeed a good idea. Present a written argument to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of the following topic:

Cricket has become more popular than the national sports in the sub-continental countries.

Model Answer:Cricket, traditionally an English sport, is becoming increasingly popular in other parts of the world like Australia, South Africa, Indian Continents etc. But the popularity is evidently the highest among the countries of the Indo-Pak sub-continent, for reasons that are historical, anthropological, geographical, and even commercial. There are more than 200 crore audiences of cricket only in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Srilanka and they are certainly the highest part of cricket fans than another part of the world. 

The game of Cricket came to South-Asia in the hands of the English colonists centuries ago and has seeped into the hearts of the people here while the cricketers of here have won over the hearts of the English. This inter-continental love-affair perhaps has made the south-Asians elope with the Bat and Ball from their national and ethnical sports. Also, World Cup wins in the 80s and 90s, and phenomenal performers like Hanif Mohammed of the 50s and Sachin Tendulkar of late, all have made Cricket more psychologically ethnical than the native sports of this region. Mother Nature had her hand in it too. Cricket is compared with religion in country like India. Even when the war-conflict hot the air of India and Pakistan, the stadium tied the friendship these two countries. 

Some opine that South-Asians are natural cricketers. It has indeed been proven that the sub-continent players are more adaptive to the physiological demands of Cricket compared to how they get naturalized to other

international sports e.g. Football, Basketball etc. Also, the climatic conditions here are relatively more suitable for playing cricket compared to the climates of many other parts of the globe. Not to forget, the virtually uncountable population of this region that continually fuels the ever-sprouting 11-member teams needed to stage only half of a Cricket game and supplies the hundreds of millions of spectators to cheer the players. Altogether, it is like a match made in heaven, “divine” enough to surpass any hereditary bond.

Commerce plays its own amazingly profitable part too. Cricket enthusiasts of here have become the primary consumer base of many global enterprises who mass-charm the sub-continent customers through extravagantly sponsored tournaments. ICC, the governing body of world Cricket, also cajoles the people here because of their financial utility and cossets them from their sporting heredity. The national sport of the Indian sub-continent is only official and in practice they are not popular at all. The kids play cricket in the fields, streets, rain harvesting fields and even in terrace of the building. The show a little interest in other national sports and thus how the appeal of those games are reducing.

Regardless of where it came from, the most certain conclusion to be made here is that Cricket is to stay and sustain in the nourishment of the South-Asian pandemonium and will indefinitely reign over the people here like the God-sent hero who conquers not only the matter but also the nativity.

To solve the ever-increasing environmental hazards throughout the world, the best way is to increase the price of fuel.

What is your opinion on the above assumption?

You should write at least 250 words.

Model Answer 1: (Agreement) Environmental or natural hazards are the result of physical processes that affect humans and environment every day and harmful for both in short and long run. As the use of fuel increases to keep up with modern demands and increased population, the world is becoming more vulnerable to environmental hazards and disasters. Floods, earthquakes, severe thunderstorms, toxic or oil spills immediately come to mind when comprehending this issue, implying that all these things are inherently hazardous.

One of the most effective solutions to these environmental hazards is to raise the price of fuel. The use of petroleum and gasoline can release toxic chemicals into our atmosphere. These chemicals escape into the air during refilling, from the gasoline tank and carburetor during normal operation, and from engine exhaust. Transportation sources account for about 30-50% of all harmful emissions into the atmosphere. The industrialization is another reason for the omission of harmful chemicals too.

“Smog” is another environmental hazard. It causes human respiratory stress, and damages many plants, significantly reducing farm crop yields and the “health” of trees and other vegetation. Burning gasoline emits significant quantities of a wide range of harmful gases into the atmosphere. For example, carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas produced by incomplete combustion. Carbon dioxide, a normal product of burning fuel, is non-toxic, but contributes to the greenhouse effect, which is also known as global warming and it is probably the most dangerous threat for the human existence.

Raising the price of fuel would mean that people would use less petroleum and gasoline. They would find other alternative means of transport to save money, which would mean using less high-priced fuel for everyday purposes. For example, cycling is a healthy activity and it saves the earth too. Also, for a long journey, people could try to find friends together for car-pooling. Car-pooling saves a lot of fuel and would save a lot of money too. But other things should be considered to reduce the use of these dangerous fuels. Government should implement strict rules of using car, for instance no less than 4 persons should be allowed to drive a single car. The price should be increased in a thoughtful way because if the price is so high it will hamper the average people's life leading. There are so many people yet use public transportation for movement and the increased price will make their life miserable. The prices of many necessary daily ingredients also increase with the price of fuel.         

Many environmental hazards like “smog” and global warming are increasing around the world due to the excessive use of petroleum and gasoline in our daily lives. Raising the price of fuel could make all the difference to the environment. It would force people to use petrol in a more responsible way and use it less, and therefore be the most effective solution to the problem of ever-increasing environmental hazards though it might have some side effects but those can be controlled by the proper initiatives by the Government.

Safety standards are important when building people's homes. Who should be responsible for enforcing strict building codes – the government or the people who build the homes?

Use your own knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.

You should write at least 250 words

Model Answer 1:(Viewpoint: People and owners should be responsible for enforcing strict building codes)

The population of the world is increasing and so does the needs for more houses, commercial buildings and other constructions are escalating as well. The high rising buildings constructions, wood-house constructions etc. require more safety & standard issues while this is being violated often and accidents related to building constructions are increasing. Some people opine that Government is solely responsible to ensure the safety and codes while others believe that house owners are the persons who should be responsible. In my opinion, government has a role to set the rules and following it but it the owners and authority of the building owners who should ensure the standard and safety while constructing the houses and commercial buildings.

First of all, it is out of score for the government to appoint necessary manpower and monitoring system in every place where the construction works would occur. Before building any house, people must take the permission from the authority and build the house accordingly. But any accident occurs due to the lack of safety procedure; improver use of tools and materials, unskilled labour, unnecessary rush would be because of the owner’s failure to comply the codes.

The workers, who work for contractions; including the architect, engineer and labour, should know the safety rules and codes and also should protest when they believe that a rule might have been violated and ignored.  The labours should never assent to work in a position which is harmful and risky for them, the engineers should maintain the strict rules instead of blindly following the construction owners order and the local authority should time to time monitor the constructions to avoid the hazards.

In conclusion, the Government does not have the necessary scope to monitor each & every construction in a country and the house owners must know the safety procedures, standards and rules to make sure the safety.

t is said that, "Not everything that is learned is contained in books".

Compare and contrast knowledge gained from experience with knowledge gained from books. In your opinion, which source is more important? Why?

Write at least 250 words.

Model Answer 1: (Notion: the knowledge we gather from our experience is far more important)Books are our best companions and source of knowledge from our infant time till the end of life. Our learning begins by reading books. Books open new horizons in front of us. But sometimes the hardest and most important lessons we learn in life come from our participation in situation. The things we learn in real-life can never be learned through anything else. We can't learn everything from books and in my opinion, the knowledge we gather from our experience is far more important, than anything else. Of course, learning from books in a formal educational institutions and learning from books for someone's own interest are highly important. Books are like open doors. Whenever someone read books, it helps the readers to broaden their power of imagination, to introduce them new ideas. In facts, books are fine collection of ideas, experiences, imaginations and innovations of writers for the readers. But everyone's life is much more different than all of others. So we sometimes face a whole new situation. I believe, most important lessons can not be taught. It must be faced and learned all by ourselves. The experiences we gather from our daily life help us to rectify our future act. We learn from watching a situation even if we are not the part of it. We even learn from the stories we hear from our friends or family members about some strange situations that have occurred.    No one can teach us how to live alone, how to share our feelings, how to create self-respects. Those all must be learned from our experiences. Experiencing our own triumphs and disasters is really the only way to learn how to deal with life. Books, teachers, parents give us guide-lines and our experiences gives the perfection of it.   Compare the advantages and disadvantages of three of the following as media for communicating information. State which three you consider the most effective.

 Comic , Books, Radio, Television, Film, Theater.Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

You should write at least 250 words.

Model Answer 1:In our daily life, we communicate information through lots of different media like: internet, television, radio, books, cell phone, film etc. We are living in such a time when information is one of the most important issues and the information technologies as well as the communication media greatly influence our lives. The rapid-growing websites and TV channels are many of few little examples how media are spreading to make information easily accessible. All the media for information interchange have advantages and disadvantages and not all can attract all types of audiences. Comics, books, radios, televisions, film and theater are all very powerful media for communicating information. In my opinion books, televisions and film among those aforementioned six media are most effective.

Books are the witness of history and the main source from which we gain knowledge. From very ancient period till now books are working as the light-house for our society. In our early age, we gather most of our knowledge, skills from books. It opens new horizons in front of us. The writer writes down their experiences, imaginations, knowledge,

explanation etc. about each and every issue of our lives. Books are the long lasting protocol to make a bridge among writers and readers.

However, all are not happy to read books. They expect something easier and more vivid. Music, radios, films etc. are more appealing to them. Television is another powerful media. Watching television is a part of our daily lives. Most of the people who have a TV set, watch programs, news etc. with apt attention. It is a strong medium for Government and other organizations to send their messages to the mass population. Program representatives also broad cast the people's view and opinions about different controversial issues in TV programs. However, this medium has lots of demerits and bad impacts. Government and politically biased organizations often send negative and misleading news. Again young people watch different satellite channels and try to adopt the alien culture which is really harmful for the culture and tradition of a country.

Films are audio-visual representation and can catch the attention of people from different geographical locations, races and cultures. A good film can shape someone's morality and doctrine and the film-makers with their huge amount of money, are so careful to make their films realistic and eye-absorbing. Every film has a direct or potential message or moral. On the contrary, some films also bring a wrong message to us. For example, protagonists are always smoking in the films and it seems that smoking is a good and smart habit. It causes many younger people imitate them smoking.

In conclusion, I would like to some up that books, televisions and films are the most powerful and effective medias for communicating information.

Do you support that the nuclear technology should be used for constructive purposes?Use your own knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.

Give reasons for your viewpoint.

You should write at least 250 words.

Model Answer 1: (View point: Use of nuclear technology for constructive purposes can bring human benefit)Many people are afraid of nuclear technology because of the dangers associated with its use. And belligerent leaders and terrorists may cause great human disaster by the use of nuclear weapons of mass-destruction. Though it is true that nuclear weapons pose the greatest threat to life, I personally support the use of nuclear technology for constructive purposes can bring human benefit.

The most worrying aspect of nuclear technology is its use for military purposes by many high and mighty countries. Enough atomic bombs have already been made which are capable of completely destroying the planet. An increasing number of countries now have nuclear weapon or have the technology required to make such bombs, and there is an ongoing debate about how to control the threat of nuclear weapon. After the fall of Russia, many Russian scientists have found their nuclear technology expertise is in high demand in countries that have an ambition with nuclear technology. Many believe that, at that time, technology has been secretly made available to many aspiring countries like, Iraq, North Korea, India, Pakistan and others. Experts believe that now a days, many confrontational countries and terrorist organizations have nuclear know how which they could use for terrorism and mass destruction. However, it would have been better if it had never been used to create nuclear weapons. If life on earth is to continue, we must control nuclear weapons of mass destruction. To eliminate the threat of nuclear war, all the nuclear power nations of the world should agree to disarm as soon as possible.

Nuclear power stations provide an important source of cheap power in many industrialized nations and some developing countries. However, like most sophisticated technology, there are dangers associated with it. Even though very high safety precautions are taken, there have been few cases of disasters; two or three were major human disasters. Yet many experts believe that in the coming days, nuclear power will be the most efficient source of energy for the mankind.

Nuclear technology has been widely used in medical science. X-rays are widely used technology that medical diagnosis. Radiotherapy is widely used to help cure some diseases such as cancer. Controlled and measured radiation is applied on malignant cancerous cells to kill them or stop their spreading.

In conclusion, nuclear technology certainly has many positive uses and offers lots of promise. But we have to bear in mind that it is dangerous if not handled properly or goes in the wrong hands. Nuclear technology should be only used for the true benefit of the mankind. If we forget this, we have to take the responsibility of our own destiny.

Nowadays, more and more foreign students are going to English-Speaking countries to learn the “international language – English". It is undoubtedly true that studying English in an English-speaking country is the best way, but it is not the only way to learn it.

Do you agree or disagree with the above statement.

You should write at least 250 words.

Use your own knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.

Model Answer 1:(Agreement: It is NOT the ONLY way to learn it)

There is no debate that being in a real English language environment will help any one to master the language in the fastest and most effective way and many international students prefer to go to English speaking countries to study and lean the international language. I agree that this is the a good way, yet students can learn English in other useful ways and those can be even better than the first approach.

Being in an English speaking country helps students learn English in many ways. Firstly, the surroundings and environment influence our learning. We are forced to speak, read write, and slowly we start even thinking in English since we have to. Secondly, quick learning of the language can become a strong motivation because in turn, we will get quick feedback that lets us find what we learn really benefits us in life and education. This inspires us to continue to learn more. It’s a positive reinforcement Learning builds on progressively. The initial earning serves as the basis for further learning. Thirdly, in an English-speaking country, you will be learning from the life and culture which is not present outside that land.

However, in this age of cross-culture communication and Internet, learning English in an English-speaking country is not the only way. The English language learning opportunities are available in many countries. Now-a-days people are able to find various ways of learning English language in their home country that are highly effective and productive. Watching English movies, television, listening to English music and browsing Internet can open up vast plethora of English materials. For instance, one can make use of the vast storage of materials (video, sound, graphics, etc.) on the Internet to facilitate language study. Sometimes non-English speaking students may need different approach in learning English. The principle of “different students, different teaching”, by the famous saying by Chinese guru Confucius, maintains that different teaching approaches are useful for different segment of students. The way a foreign student learns a language is quite different from those of an English native speaker. For example, a foreign student higher level; however, it is unnecessary for a native speaker. Last but not the least, on some occasions, students may find teachers in their own countries do a better job in figuring out their exact weak points and the remedies for them. A teacher of a non- English country understand the basic of a student and can combine both the native language and English

to make the study plan and this might be more helpful than a native English teacher's approach of studying.   

In conclusion, I believe studying English in English-speaking country is a good way but in many cases the other ways can be proven to be more efficient than being in an English speaking country.  

Children & Physical PunishmentShould we physical force to punish children? This essay says no.

Time to Change our Minds!There have been big changes in the attitudes of most parents over the last few years. Very few parents would agree with using force regularly as a way of dealing with discipline problems in their children. Physical punishment is banned in schools in most countries, and in many countries, there are moves to ban all corporal punishment of children even in the home. However, many parents still believe that they have a right to use some physical punishment to deal with certain misbehavior at certain ages. This essay will ask if some physical punishment is acceptable today, and will ask how parents can know what the limits are.

It is easy to find reasons to allow some physical punishment. One issue is that many parents find it very difficult to abandon physical punishment completely. Parents argue that this was the way they were brought up themselves and that it didn’t do any harm to them. They believe that for the child’s sake that they have the right to discipline the child in any way they see fit, including using corporal punishment. A second point is that corporal punishment can be quick and effective: there is not much point reasoning with a screaming child in the supermarket. Finally, most parents are reasonable and fair, and very very few would ever consider hurting their children by using unnecessary physical force.

There are several reasons however why we should stop using physical punishment even in the home. One point is that most parents are not trained to deal with misbehaving children. They do not have enough resources or choices to handle the situation. As a result, they immediately react by smacking or hitting the child, even if there are other solutions to the problem. Another point is that unless people are challenged or forced to change their beliefs they may keep following negative habits. An example is seatbelt use – now most people wear seat belts without thinking, whereas years ago the idea of using safety belts was strange to most people. In the same way, banning physical punishment in the home will allow people to change their habits and break a cycle of violence. However, the most obvious reason for banning all physical punishment of children is to prevent child abuse. If all parents are allowed to hit their children in the name of discipline, some parents will go too far and will inflict severe emotional and physical damage on their children. It may only be a small minority of parents, but we need to protect all our children.

In conclusion, parents have to change some of their beliefs and ideas about how children should be raised. It is possible to avoid the use of physical force in the home, and doing so will help us move closer to dream of removing violence from our society.

with poorer nations by providing them with things such as food and education? Or is this the responsibility of the governments of poorer nations to look after their citizens?

I think that wealthy nations should be required to share their wealth with poorer nations. But their helping should only stop at providing such things as food and education because of the three following reasons.

Firstly, citizens of both wealthy nations and poorer nations are human beings. Therefore, we can not look at, hear of, or talk about people who lack food, education, etc… without compassion and sympathy. Sharing wealth with poorer nations is not only a good deed but is also a task .

Secondly, many nations in Africa and Asia are very very poor. Famine, diseases, crime and illiteracy are killing the citizens of these countries. In the contrary, many nations in Europe and America are too rich. If there are no actions taken, this inequality will increase dramatically. Poor countries will become more and more poorer while rich countries will become more and more richer. As a result, the poorest countries will become slaves of the richest countries. So, sharing wealth is an useful way to prevent people from that bad future.

Thirdly, although sharing wealth with poorer nations is very necessary but this help should only stop at providing such things as food, medicine and education. Or else, poor nations may become dependent on the aid. They may lose enthusiasm to build their countries by themselves. Moreover, rich nations can take advantage of sharing wealth to interfere with the governance of poor nations’. This can’t be considered a humane action and should be prevented.

In my opinion, sharing wealth with poorer nations has both a bad side and a good side. What we have to do is avoiding its bad side and practicing its good side.

Some people consider computers to be more of a hindrance than a help. Others believe that they have greatly increased human potential.

How could computers be considered a hindrance?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience.

In recent years, our life style become more better. A lot of digital devices have been invented such as computers, robots. In the past, people did everything by self. They recorded everything in especial book, used their mind to calculated. But, today all this job has been done by computers.

In fact, computers have al lot of benefits. First of all, people do their job more easier and faster than the past. Secondly, when we use computer, we remove human mistake. Human can forget, or do a mistake when he or she do calculated or record something. But computers do not do such as mistakes. Finally, Space that we need for save all information are decrease. Every information can be save on a small hard disk.

However, some people believe computers are hindrance and they are not so useful as we are think. There are some reason for this idea. Firstly, every people do not have knowledge to working with computers. These people must be trained and this process has been wasted a lot of time and money. Secondly, Computers are digital device, so they need electronic power for working. Also if a computer burned, every data that save on it have been lost. Finally, for access to saved data, we need a computers, password and permission. If we forgot the password, we could not access to information anymore.

To sum up, I think, beside all advantage of computers, we should not forget about disadvantage of it. Moreover, people who use computer are very lazy than people who not depended on computers.