Recent IELTS Writing
Topics and Questions 2021 with
vocabulary…
What are the reasons for this?
How can people research this?
There is a growing trend whereby residents are researching the
history of their homes. In my opinion, this is due to a natural curiosity and
practical concerns and should be done through official channels.
Many are interested in the past of their home because they
desire to link with history and are worried about potential structural faults.
The first reason is analogous to exhaustively studying family genealogy. By
researching one’s ancestors or place of residence, it is possible to understand
and establish a connection with the past. Moreover, there is a pragmatic reason
related to historic construction methods. Older homes in particular may have
employed unsafe techniques or materials that will degrade, creating the risk of
structural damage and, in the worst cases, collapses. By learning about the
house and period when it was built, residents can take the necessary steps to
ensure the house is structurally sound.
The method for carrying out such specialized research involves
requesting local records. It is possible to do initial research through “word
of mouth” and collecting relevant stories in a community. However, this
information may be unreliable, and therefore an individual should endeavor to
contact their local building authorities. In most countries, it is possible to
register a freedom of information request and receive the required documents
from municipal offices. Governments have little incentive to protect such
information and are likely to be receptive and helpful in offering assistance.
Residents can then be assured they have the most trustworthy information
possible in order to better understand the history of their home and any
possible defects in its construction.
To conclude, some today gather information concerning the history
of their home to understand the past and guarantee their safety. This
development is advisable and the authorities should comply and encourage such
fact-finding.
123.
growing trend = increasingly common.
whereby = in which.
residents = people
who live there.
researching = learning
about.
history = past.
due to = because of.
natural curiosity = normal
desire.
practical concerns = pragmatic worries.
official channels = through the government.
desire = want.
link = connection.
worried about = concerned about.
potential structural faults = possible weaknesses in a house or building.
analogous = same
situation.
exhaustively = completely.
genealogy = history
of a family.
ancestors = people
from the past.
place of residence = where
they live.
understand = recognize.
establish = create/find.
connection = link.
pragmatic reason = useful cause.
related to = concerning.
construction methods = how
it was built.
employed unsafe
techniques = use ways that are
dangerous.
materials = substances.
risk = threat.
structural damage = weakness
in the building itself.
in the worst cases = in extreme scenarios.
collapses = falls in on itself.
period = time.
take the necessary steps = do
the needed actions.
ensure = make sure.
structurally sound = not weak in any way.
method = way.
carrying out conducting.
specialized research = very specific research.
requesting local records = asking
for files.
initial = first.
“word of mouth” = what people say.
collecting = finding.
community = neighborhood.
unreliable = untrustworthy.
endeavor = try.
contact = talk to.
authorities = those in charge.
possible = feasible.
register = submit.
freedom of information request = asking
to find out something that is public record.
receive = get.
required documents = needed
files.
municipal offices = government buildings.
little incentive = no
reason.
protect = safeguard.
receptive = welcoming.
offering assistance = helping.
assured = can be sure of.
trustworthy information = reliable data.
possible = potential.
defects = weaknesses.
gather information concerning
= find
information about.
development = change.
advisable = good.
comply = work with to help.
encourage = motivate.
fact-finding = looking
for information.
Why is this? Do you think it is a positive or negative
development?
Answer
It is becoming increasingly common for companies to place focus
on the novelty of their products. In my opinion, this has its basis in the
psychology of consumer behavior and is generally a negative development.
The reason many marketing departments present products as new is
they are hoping to incentivize increased consumer demand. One of the chief
principles of business is that products must meet a real consumer need and,
ideally, be unique in some way. For example, advertising for the electronic
vehicles made by Tesla highlights that they are different from traditional
automobiles and this offers novel benefits for the environment and the
individual motorist. This strategy created a niche in the automotive industry
that they eventually expanded to become one of the largest companies in the
world. It follows that every business attempts to present their products as new
to inspire interest and compel demand.
There are exceptions, as in the case of Tesla mentioned above,
however, this trend generally leads to disingenuous ads and consumer fatigue.
Most companies framing their products as new in some aspect are actually
attempting to mislead the public. This is often the case with soft drink
companies like Coca Cola and Pepsi that regularly rebrand their bottles and
cans to give the appearance of novelty. These tactics are recognizably
dishonest and audiences are rarely convinced. In fact, the net effect is that
consumers become tired of watching ads for familiar products pretending to be
innovative. For many customers this leads to a growing feeling of apathy and
disinterest towards the exploitive methods of advertisers.
In conclusion, the reason businesses often present their
products as new lies in the importance of consumer psychology and the cynical
impact this has in the aggregate is negative. More savvy companies often eschew
this trend and produce honest advertisements.
End.
increasingly common = more and more pervasive.
place focus = highlight.
novelty = newness.
products = items.
basis = foundation.
psychology = how people think.
consumer behavior = how
consumers make decisions.
generally = overall.
marketing = advertising.
present = show.
hoping = wanting.
incentivize = give a reason to do something.
consumer demand = people
wanting to buy something.
chief principles of business = main tenets of business.
meet a real consumer need = address
an actual desire.
ideally = in
a perfect world.
unique = different
and special.
electronic vehicles = cars
that don’t run on gas/oil.
highlights = focuses on.
traditional automobiles = normal
cars.
offers novel benefits = provides new advantages.
environment = nature.
motorist = person
who drives.
strategy = tactic.
niche = small
market.
automotive industry = car
companies.
eventually expanded = at some point grew.
largest = biggest.
follows = naturally makes sense that.
attempts = tries.
inspire interest = make people care.
compel demand = make people buy.
exceptions = outliers.
as in the case of = for example.
mentioned above = written about before.
trend = pattern.
leads to disingenuous ads = causes
ads that are dishonest.
consumer fatigue = people
getting tired of it.
framing = contextualizing.
new in some aspect = novel in some way.
actually attempting
= in
fact trying.
mislead = lie.
public = people
in general.
This is often the case with
soft drink = happens a
lot with soda companies.
regularly = often.
rebrand = change the way a product looks.
give the appearance of novelty
= seem to be new.
tactics = strategies.
recognizably dishonest = clearly
lying.
audiences = consumers, those watching/reading.
rarely convinced = not
often fooled.
in fact = actually.
net effect = overall impact.
tired = fed
up, fatigued.
familiar = known.
pretending = lying.
innovative = new.
leads to = causes.
growing feeling = increasing sense.
apathy = not caring.
disinterest = not
interested.
exploitive methods = trying to take advantage.
advertisers = people
in charge of the ads.
lies in = has
its source in.
cynical impact = distrustful effect.
in the aggregate = all
together.
savvy = smart.
eschew = avoid.
produce = make.
Why is this? Do you think it is a positive or negative
development?
Answer.
It is becoming increasingly common for companies to place focus
on the novelty of their products. In my opinion, this has its basis in the
psychology of consumer behavior and is generally a negative development.
The reason many marketing departments present products as new is
they are hoping to incentivize increased consumer demand. One of the chief
principles of business is that products must meet a real consumer need and,
ideally, be unique in some way. For example, advertising for the electronic
vehicles made by Tesla highlights that they are different from traditional
automobiles and this offers novel benefits for the environment and the
individual motorist. This strategy created a niche in the automotive industry
that they eventually expanded to become one of the largest companies in the
world. It follows that every business attempts to present their products as new
to inspire interest and compel demand.
There are exceptions, as in the case of Tesla mentioned above,
however, this trend generally leads to disingenuous ads and consumer fatigue.
Most companies framing their products as new in some aspect are actually
attempting to mislead the public. This is often the case with soft drink
companies like Coca Cola and Pepsi that regularly rebrand their bottles and
cans to give the appearance of novelty. These tactics are recognizably
dishonest and audiences are rarely convinced. In fact, the net effect is that
consumers become tired of watching ads for familiar products pretending to be
innovative. For many customers this leads to a growing feeling of apathy and
disinterest towards the exploitive methods of advertisers.
In conclusion, the reason businesses often present their
products as new lies in the importance of consumer psychology and the cynical
impact this has in the aggregate is negative. More savvy companies often eschew
this trend and produce honest advertisements.
End.
increasingly common = more
and more pervasive.
place focus = highlight.
novelty = newness.
products = items.
basis = foundation.
psychology = how
people think.
consumer behavior = how consumers make decisions.
generally = overall.
marketing = advertising.
present = show.
hoping = wanting.
incentivize = give a reason to do something.
consumer demand = people wanting to buy something.
chief principles of business = main
tenets of business.
meet a real consumer need = address an actual desire.
ideally = in a perfect world.
unique = different
and special.
electronic vehicles = cars that don’t run on gas/oil.
highlights = focuses
on.
traditional automobiles = normal cars.
offers novel benefits = provides new advantages.
environment = nature.
motorist = person who drives.
strategy = tactic.
niche = small market.
automotive industry = car companies.
eventually expanded = at
some point grew.
largest = biggest.
follows = naturally
makes sense that.
attempts = tries.
inspire interest = make
people care.
compel demand = make
people buy.
exceptions = outliers.
as in the case of = for
example.
mentioned above = written
about before.
trend = pattern.
leads to disingenuous ads = causes ads that are dishonest.
consumer fatigue = people
getting tired of it.
framing = contextualizing.
new in some aspect = novel
in some way.
actually attempting = in
fact trying.
mislead = lie.
public = people
in general.
This is often the case with
soft drink = happens a lot with
soda companies.
regularly = often.
rebrand = change
the way a product looks.
give the appearance of novelty = seem
to be new.
tactics = strategies.
recognizably dishonest = clearly lying.
audiences = consumers, those watching/reading.
rarely convinced = not
often fooled.
in fact = actually.
net effect = overall impact.
tired = fed up, fatigued.
familiar = known.
pretending = lying.
innovative = new.
leads to = causes.
growing feeling = increasing
sense.
apathy = not caring.
disinterest = not
interested.
exploitive methods = trying to take advantage.
advertisers = people
in charge of the ads.
lies in = has
its source in.
cynical impact = distrustful
effect.
in the aggregate
= all
together.
savvy = smart.
eschew = avoid.
produce = make.
Q
4. People nowadays tend to have children at older ages.
Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?
Answer.
There are growing numbers of men and women choosing to have
children later in life these days. In my opinion, the financial advantages of
this trend far outweigh any perceived downsides.
The most significant tradeoffs of this relate to opportunity and
maturity. Many individuals decide early on in their career to wait until their
mid to late 30s to have children. The natural risk here is that if the
relationship ends before that point or they then have trouble conceiving, they
may end up childless. This possibility is lower today due to advances in
fertility science but still exists. Furthermore, having children is a maturing
experience. If an individual waits until late in life to raise a child, then
they delay the experience gained and may later regret their decision. Most
parents would openly admit that parenthood is a life-altering milestone and
defining moment of adulthood.
Nonetheless, the disadvantages detailed above pale in comparison
to the economic merits of delaying childbirth. Firstly, most young parents are
not in an ideal situation in their career. Many working parents earn low
salaries and work long hours. Once they have a child that means the majority of
their day is occupied and they may feel trapped and overburdened. It is then
difficult to switch careers or move to a new location as well as afford all the
expenses incumbent on parents. This often results in parents becoming resentful
and projecting their animosity towards their children or significant other. In contrast,
parents who are firmly established in their careers, earn decent salaries, and
have savings set aside have both the time and energy to devote to raising their
children well without having to stress about making ends meet.
In conclusion, despite marginal risks concerning the opportunity
and experience, it is an overall positive for financial reasons that many
prospective parents are putting off childbirth. Therefore, this trend should be
welcomed and encouraged.
End.
growing numbers = more
and more people.
later in life = when they are older.
financial advantages = good
for your money.
trend = pattern.
far outweigh = are much stronger than.
perceived downsides = apparent
disadvantages.
significant tradeoffs = major downsides.
opportunity = chance.
maturity = experience.
decide early on = choose
from the beginning.
mid to late 30s = 35 – 40 years old.
natural risk = obvious threat.
before that point = prior
to that..
trouble conceiving = difficulty
having kids.
may end up childless = might finally not have kids.
possibility = chance.
advances = developments.
fertility science = medicine
related to having kids.
furthermore = moreover.
maturing experience = makes you more like an adult.
raise a child = help
a kid grow up.
delay = wait
until later.
regret = wish
it had been different.
openly admit honestly say.
parenthood = being a parent.
life-altering milestone = significant moment in life.
defining moment = significant
time.
adulthood = being
an adult.
nonetheless = regardless.
detailed above = described
over.
pale in comparison to = not as important as.
economic merits = helps
you make money.
delaying childbirth = waiting
until later to have kids.
ideal situation = best context.
earn low salaries = make more money at work.
work long hours = spend
a lot of time at work.
majority = most of.
occupied = time taken up.
trapped = stuck.
overburdened = too
much work.
switch careers = change
jobs.
location = place.
afford = pay for.
expenses incumbent on = money you have to pay.
results in = causes.
resentful = annoyed.
projecting = putting
on to someone else.
animosity = resentment.
significant other = partner, husband, wife.
firmly established = solidly
in place.
earn decent salaries = make
a lot of money.
savings set aside = money
saved.
devote to = put time into.
without having to = not needing to.
making ends meet = earning
enough money to survive.
despite marginal risks = regardless
of small dangers.
concerning = related to.
overall positive = good
on the whole.
prospective parents = possible parents later.
putting off childbirth = delaying
having children.
therefore = thus.
welcomed = should be applauded.
encouraged = motivated.
Q5.
Some people think that children under 18 years old should receive full-time
education.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Answer.
Many feel that students should be required to attend full-time
classes until the age of 18. In my opinion, when economically viable this
mandate is advisable.
Those who oppose this policy argue it is impossible in more
rural areas, particularly in developing nations. In such locations, children
and teenagers often do not have convenient access to schools and assisting
their parents with farm or other work is a greater priority. For example, in
many rural villages in South Asia, even young children must lend a hand working
to raise crops and livestock. The parents of these children can also make the
legitimate argument that they are preserving a traditional and equally valuable
way of life that does not involve modern schooling. However, these contexts are
becoming rarer as individuals migrate to cities and the countryside receives
improved infrastructure.
The main reason to support compulsory full-time education to the
age of 18 is the opportunities it opens up in an evolving world. The lifestyle
in rural areas that now seemingly justifies reduced schooling is disappearing
due to more efficient farming equipment and the industrialization of production
methods. Therefore, the most viable path for most individuals is to have an
education through high school and ideally university that will endow them with
employable skills. For instance, an individual who has learned a variety of
subjects and graduated from formal schooling can then apply either for higher
education or a job that requires a high school certificate. Both their worst
and best case scenarios for the future improve considerably.
In conclusion, despite the valid reasons that exist in rural
communities to de-emphasize education, it is worthwhile to enforce mandatory
schooling for all minors. This is now more important than ever as job markets
become more competitive.
End..
required = have to do it
attend = go to
full-time = all day
economically viable = makes
sense based on the finances of a country
mandate = order
advisable = a
good idea to do it
oppose = go
against
policy = regulation
rural areas = the countryside
particularly = especially
developing nations = poorer countries
locations = places
convenient access = easy
to get to
assisting = helping
greater priority more important
rural villages towns in the countryside
lend a hand help out
raise crops and livestock help grow food and look after animals
legitimate argument defensible point
preserving keeping alive
traditional from the past
equally valuable also good
modern schooling education today
contexts situations
rarer not common
migrate move to
receives improved infrastructure get better roads, schools, etc.
compulsory have to go there, no choice, mandatory
opportunities chances
opens up creates
evolving world changing world
seemingly justifies appears to make it defensible
reduced not as strong
efficient farming
equipment machines that can farm easily
industrialization machines, production, etc.
production methods how things are made
viable path good way
through high school to the end of secondary school
ideally in a perfect world
endow give
employable skills skills that help you get a job
variety of subjects lots of different kinds of classes
formal official
apply put in an application
high school certificate diploma
worst and best case
scenarios the worst and ideal situation
despite regardless of
valid legitimate
rural communities country villages
de-emphasize not put focus on
worthwhile justifiable
enforce make sure it is done
minors kids, teenagers
job markets employment sectors
competitive hard to get a position
Some
people today prefer to get advice for medical problems and do not want to visit
a doctor.
Why is this?
Is this a positive or a negative development?
Many individuals today would rather seek out medical advice
themselves instead of seeing a licensed professional. In my opinion, this is a
result of online convenience and it is a positive development on the whole.
The main cause of this transition is the proliferation of
information available on the internet. In the past, an ailing individual had
little recourse other than to visit a doctor for tests. Now, there are a
variety of question and answer websites as well as diagnosis ones that are free
of cost and faster than a trip to a hospital. The slight conveniences of saving
some money, time, and effort may not seem decisive, but mass behaviour is often
driven by marginal advantages. For instance, posting a question to a forum such
as Reddit.com where qualified professions may provide free advice is a powerful
incentive to avoid a costly and time-consuming consultation with an experienced
doctor.
Though there are risks associated with misdiagnosis, seeking
advice online is generally more reliable. Doctors vary in their quality and
numerous studies in recent years support the counter-intuitive conclusion that
websites actually provide more trustworthy advice. This is a result of the
accumulation of many years’ worth of data and the standardizing of detection,
prognosis, and treatment. For example, the website WebMD.com allows users to
search for their symptoms online, discover a range of possible causes and then
decide themselves on the best path forward. This may include a visit to a
hospital if further tests are required that can only be conducted in person,
but at least the patient has saved time and money at the initial stage of
diagnosis.
In conclusion, fewer people today visit doctors because there
are cheap, convenient alternatives online and this is largely positive. There
are risks that must be guarded against but this change cannot be reversed.
seek out find
medical advice suggestions from doctors
instead of over
licensed professional doctor
online convenience easier to do on a website
positive development on the
whole good overall
transition change to
proliferation spread
information available what can be found online
in the past formerly
ailing sick
little recourse other than
to no choice but to
tests conducted to find out about your illness
variety many types
question and answer websites forum sites
as well as and
diagnosis identifying what’s wrong
free of cost no charge
trip travelling to a place
slight conveniences minor helps
decisive makes a real difference
mass behaviour how people act
driven by motivated by
marginal advantages small edges
posting putting up online
forum where people can ask and answer questions online
qualified professions doctors
powerful incentive good motivator
avoid stay away from
costly expensive
time-consuming
consultation takes up a lot of time
experienced have done the job a long time
risks associated with
misdiagnosis dangers related to a
mistake in identifying what is wrong
reliable trustworthy
vary change according to
numerous studies in recent
years support the counter-intuitive conclusion much research recently shows the unlikely fact that
actually in fact
trustworthy reliable
accumulation adding up
years’ worth a lot of time put into it
data information
standardizing made all the same
detection finding out
prognosis how the illness with continue
treatment medicine
WebMD.com a site with information about illnesses
users people using the site
symptoms the results of an illness
discover find out about
range variety of
possible causes potential sources
decide themselves figure out on their own
best path forward treatment options
conducted done
initial stage early on
convenient alternatives good other options
largely mostly
risks threats
guarded against protected from
reversed changed back
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many are of the belief that past traditions now hold little
future value for young people. In my opinion, there are still important lessons
young people can learn from their cultural heritage.
Supporters of this contention argue that the changing world has
make old ways of life irrelevant. This is especially the case as technology has
hastened cultural and economic upheaval. In the past, an individual’s
grandparents might be able to give worthwhile advice related to how to behave
at work and manage their relationships. This is now less true than ever before
because of the advent of social media apps, dating websites, remote working and
the loss of traditional career paths. The growth of the internet has had a
further globalising effect that erodes the uniqueness of cultures. For example,
recent women’s empowerment movements have occurred simultaneously globally,
often in conflict with the traditional values of individual nations.
Nonetheless, tradition serves as an increasingly important guide
in a world with few fixed values. As the world has become more secular,
religious values have declined but cultural traditions remain intact. A
standout example of this would be the strong familial ties in Asian nations
such as Japan, Korea, China, and Vietnam. Children in these nations are
expected to listen to the advice of their parents, maintain cultural
traditions, and behave within certain ethical bounds. Without these customs to
guide their behaviour, young people would be at the mercy of the values
espoused in popular media. However, by following mores from the past, young
people will have a foundation to judge their present and future actions.
In conclusion, despite the decreasing relevance of tradition in
the modern world, it still holds an important place as a basis for ethical
behaviour. Young people must therefore temper their desire to reform with a
skeptical reverence for the past.
of the belief think
past traditions customs from the past
hold little future value won’t help later
important lessons meaningful teaching
cultural heritage history and traditions of a people
supporters those in favour of
contention argument
irrelevant no longer important
especially the case in particular true
hastened cultural and economic
upheaval sped up the changes in
society
worthwhile valuable
manage deal with
This is now less true than ever
before now not as much the
case
advent beginning
social media apps TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Snap, etc.
remote working working from home
loss of traditional career
paths normal jobs going away
growth development
further globalising
effect countries becoming more
similar
erodes disappears
uniqueness special
recent women’s empowerment
movements feminist reforms in
recent years
occurred simultaneously
globally happened at the same
time all over the world
in conflict with fighting
traditional values beliefs from the past
individual nations singular countries
nonetheless regardless of
tradition serves as customs are
increasingly more and more
guide help
few fixed values not many set beliefs
secular non-religious
religious values morals from God
remain intact stay alive
standout example good instance
strong familial ties good relationships in families
expected to will likely
maintain keep
behave within certain ethical
bounds follow rules
customs traditions
guide someone to follow
at the mercy of vulnerable to
espoused propagated
mores customs
foundation basis
judge form an opinion of
present and future actions right now and later
decreasing relevance becoming less important
important place key area
basis foundation
temper weaken
desire wanting to
reform changes
skeptical reverence wary level of respect
Large
companies should pay higher salaries to CEOs and executives compared to other
workers.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many believe that executives at major companies are overpaid. In
my opinion, this disconcerting wage gap is justified as there are few
individuals capable of fulfilling the role responsibilities.
Critics of higher salaries for executives point out the
unwarranted gap between them and other employees. For example, the average
office worker or a cleaner works a similar amount of hours and, in some cases,
the demanding nature of their job is arguably more strenuous. Nonetheless, CEOs
and other executives get paid in the tens of millions of dollars annually, and
this occurs even if the company reports disappointing results or in periods of
economic downturn, such as the recent global recession. Their salaries are so
many times higher it is impossible to rationalise the disparity by emphasising
the hours worked alone. Therefore it is logical to decry the salaries of
executives and identify corruption as a culprit.
However, in my opinion, the outsized salaries for executives are
justified by supply and demand. It is an uncomfortable fact but true regardless
that there is a large pool of potential applicants who would make serviceable
replacements for the lowly paid positions. This is not true for executives
generally and CEOs more specifically. A CEO must have a strong theoretical
background (often based on attending an Ivy League institution), years of
proven experience, tireless work ethic, uncommon leadership qualities, and
exemplary understanding and insight into global economics. These abilities and
characteristics are rare and , therefore, companies must compete to hire them
by offering the greatest remuneration packages.
In conclusion, though the salaries for executives appear
extravagant, they are the result of a logical calculation of supply and demand.
There are more important reforms needed within the free market capitalist
model.
executives the highest ranking people at a company
overpaid get too much money
disconcerting wage gap worrying difference in salaries
justified reasonable
fulfilling rewarding
role responsibilities what the job requires
critics those who are against it
point out argue
unwarranted gap unjustified difference
average normal
similar amount almost the same
in some cases occasionally
demanding nature how difficult it is
arguably it can be argued
strenuous difficult
nonetheless regardless
CEOs chief executive officer – head of the company
tens of millions of dollars
annually every year $20,000,000+
occurs happens
reports disappointing
results company revenue/profit is
down
periods of economic downturn times when the economy is bad
recent global recession around the world economies doing badly
rationalise justify
disparity difference
emphasising focusing on
logical makes sense
decry are against
identify corruption find that cheating
culprit person to blame
outsized too big
supply and demand how much of something and how much it is wanted
uncomfortable fact unpleasant reality
regardless nonetheless
large pool lots of people
potential applicants possible employees
serviceable replacements good people who can take their place
lowly paid positions not well-paid
generally overall
more specifically more exactly
strong theoretical background good schooling
based on attending because
they went to
Ivy League institution Harvard, Yale, etc.
proven experience years of work that show their ability
tireless work ethic work really hard
uncommon leadership qualities rare ability to lead
exemplary understanding excellent knowledge of
insight into ideas about
global economics the world economy at large
characteristics traits
compete fight each other for
offering the greatest
remuneration packages pay the most
appear extravagant seem too big
logical calculation rational decision
reforms changes
free market capitalist model the economic system of most countries involving private
companies and a consumer economy
Why is this?
What can be learned from this?
As global wealth increases, there has been a surprising decrease
in reported levels of happiness in developed nations. In my opinion, this is
due to lifestyle changes and it teaches that money is merely a baseline
requirement for happiness.
The main reason individuals in wealthy nations are less happy
today relates to how people live. In the past, people had fewer free time
options and this led to more time being outside and socializing. Modern
lifestyles are predicated around isolation. For example, the average worker or
student after a long day is likely to spend at least a few hours watching
movies on Netflix, messaging friends, checking social media, and listening to
music. These 21st century habits would seemingly elevate happiness levels but
they are in fact a passive means of achieving low levels of contentment and
pleasure. In the aggregate, this minimum threshold of commitment pales in
comparison to more substantial activities.
The lesson from this development is that wealth is only the
foundation of happiness. Many would claim that money has no relationship to
happiness, however, this is naive since families living in poverty must obsess
over simple matters such as shelter and sustenance. Money only serves to
guarantee basic necessities and happiness is an active byproduct of action.
This can be seen most clearly in nations that score high on happiness surveys
such as in Northern Europe and Japan. Individuals in these countries tend to
have more focused lives and feel they are part of a community and culture that
requires active engagement. These societies prioritise involvement with others
and community responsibility and shun the insular hobbies that have led to
dissatisfaction in other developed nations.
In conclusion, lower levels of happiness are due to modern ways
of living and this illustrates the relative importance of wealth. Happiness
itself should not be an aim but rather a result of pursuing worthier life
goals.
global wealth amount of money in the world
surprising decrease shocking fall
reported levels the amount people say
developed nations rich countries
lifestyle changes different ways of living
merely only
baseline requirement minimum needed
relates to has to do with
fewer free time options not as many choices for hobbies
socializing talking to people
predicated based on
isolation being alone
average worker normal employee
long day whole day at work/school
at least at the minimum
checking social media looking at Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, etc.
21st century habits new pastimes in the 2000s
seemingly elevate ostensibly make better
in fact actually
passive means not an active way
achieving accomplishing
contentment satisfaction
pleasure happiness
in the aggregate all combined
minimum threshold the least required
commitment duty
pales in comparison is weaker than
substantial meaningful
foundation basis
claim argue
naive innocent, unrealistic
poverty poor
obsess fixate on
simple matters ordinary issues
shelter home
sustenance food
serves to works to
guarantee ensure
basic necessities minimum to live
active byproduct result of
This can be seen most clearly
in a good example of this is
score high get good marks
surveys reports
Northern Europe Finland, Denmark, Sweden, etc.
focused lives purposeful lives
community neighborhood
culture traditions and people around you
requires active engagement needs actual input
prioritise consider more important
involvement with others interpersonal relationships
community responsibility duty to those around you
shun ignore
insular hobbies isolated pastimes
dissatisfaction not feeling content, satisfied
relative importance of wealth how important money is compared to other factors
aim goal
pursuing worthier life goals going after more important aims in life
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Many are of the belief that it would be worthwhile for
governments to prioritise the preservation of various minority languages. In my
opinion, despite limited potential efficacy this sentiment is justifiable.
Detractors of this proposal argue that investment is unlikely to
have a major impact. In order for minority groups to earn a living and enjoy
the conveniences of the modern world, they require knowledge of a nation’s most
widely spoken language. In fact, many indigenous peoples themselves desire to
move away from their hometowns to live in large cities and join the modern
workforce. For example, in the Hmong people of Southeast Asia, it is typically
the older generation that seeks to communicate in their native tongue and preserve
traditional ways of life. The younger generation, generally, would rather learn
the most useful language and integrate with the dominant national culture.
Therefore efforts by governments oppose what individuals desire and are
unlikely to be successful.
Nonetheless, there is cultural value in preserving a language. A
language uniquely represents and codifies the external world. Everything from
the verb structures and choice of nouns to the intonation and rhythm of the
language present a singular way of interacting with and deciphering the world
at large. For example, in many languages there are words that are not precisely
translatable and users therefore are more likely to see events and objects
differently. As the world becomes increasingly globalised, I would argue that
the importance of a plurality of perspectives only becomes more crucial. If
such languages die out, they will likely never be resurrected and the world
will be poorer for the loss.
In conclusion, regardless of the potential challenges faced in
preserving minority languages, their continued existence is essential to
diversity. Governments must therefore make every effort to ensure their
survival.
of the belief believe
worthwhile important
prioritise place more importance on
preservation keep alive
various different types
minority languages less widely spoken languages
despite regardless of
limited potential efficacy no much actual effect
sentiment feeling
justifiable reasonable
detractors critics
proposal suggestion
investment money, time, etc.
major impact large effect
minority small group
earn a living make money
conveniences modern luxury’s
modern world today’s world and lifestyles
require knowledge need to know about
most widely spoken language common languages
indigenous peoples groups native to a country
desire want
move away leave
hometowns where you are from
modern workforce working at companies, in cities, etc.
Hmong an ethnic minority from Asia
typically usually
seeks tries to
native tongue native language
traditional ways of life old modes of living
integrate join in
dominant national culture main culture of a country
efforts trying
oppose go against
desire want to
successful works out
nonetheless regardless
cultural value important for the culture
uniquely represents new ways of showing
codifies makes into a symbol, language
external world outside world, reality
verb structures how verbs are used
intonation the tone of your voice
rhythm the musical quality of a language
present a singular way show a unique method
interacting with communicating with
deciphering figuring out
at large in general
not precisely translatable can’t be put in another language
users people who speak a language
increasingly globalised more and more similar
plurality of perspectives different ways of seeing the world
crucial really important
die out become extinct
resurrected brought back to life
poorer for the loss the world loses out
regardless of despite
potential challenges
faced possible difficulties
continued existence stay alive
diversity differences
make every effort try hard
ensure make sure of
survival remain alive
Some
claim that studying abroad has great benefits for a student’s home country.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many believe that studying in another country is largely
beneficial for the home country of the students in question. In my opinion, the
losses entailed by these students potentially emigrating are outweighed by the
expertise they often bring back.
Critics of this contention argue that many of the best and
brightest students never return to their country of origin. This is especially
the case as it regards developing countries, including both ordinary and famous
examples. The average student from a developing nation that studies abroad in
the United States or Europe, will likely have the opportunity to pursue a
career there. Once hired by a company, there is a clear pathway to residency
and even citizenship in the future. Since these students must meet higher
admission requirements, it logically follows that a significant percentage will
never return and share their newly acquired expertise with their fellow
citizens.
Nonetheless, the instances above are rare and there are tangible
effects from knowledgeable graduates returning to their home. Such students are
capable of contributing novel outlooks and perspectives in society generally
the workplace more specifically. One illustrative example of this in Vietnam is
Ngo Bao Chau who studied mathematics at Oxford. After his studies abroad, he
was awarded the most prestigious mathematics award, the Fields Medal, in 2007.
Upon his return to Vietnam, he established a mathematics academy in Hanoi that
distinguishes itself from other institutions with an innovative approach
borrowed from Western schools. None of this would likely have come to pass if
he had simply remained in Vietnam to study like most other students.
In conclusion, despite the risks that talented individuals may
choose to reside permanently in a new country, there are more concrete benefits
for the home country. Governments should therefore encourage such students with
state scholarships.
largely beneficial mostly good
home country nation you are from
in question relevant here
losses entailed what has been taken away
potentially emigrating possible moving
outweighed stronger than
expertise knowledgeable
bring back return
critics detractors
contention opinion
best and brightest smartest
country of origin nation you are from
especially the case as it
regards in particular when it
has to do with
average normal
studies abroad studying in another country
likely have the opportunity probably have the chance
pursue a career follow a job
hired employed
clear pathway good route
residency living in a country
citizenship becoming a citizen of a country
since because
meet higher admission
requirements hard to get into
schools
logically follows makes sense that
significant percentage sizeable proportion
return go back
share give information about
newly acquired expertise learned new information
fellow citizens other residents
nonetheless regardless
rare uncommon
tangible concrete
knowledgeable graduates smart people who have finished school
capable competent
contributing novel
outlooks giving new opinions, perspectives
perspectives ways of seeing the world
generally overall
more specifically especially
illustrative shows this point
awarded given
prestigious well-regarded
established founded
mathematics academy math school
distinguishes differentiates
institutions schools, buildings, etc.
innovative approach new method
borrowed from taken from
come to pass happened
remained stayed
despite regardless of
risks threats
reside permanently stay forever
concrete real
encourage foster
state scholarships government grants
Some
countries have introduced laws to limit working hours for employees.
Why are these laws introduced?
Do you think they are a positive or negative development?
An increasing number of nations have enacted laws to protect
average working hours. In my opinion, these laws are meant to limit exploitive
practices and they are advantageous if enforced well.
Lawmakers typically argue these reforms defend employees. Before
labor laws existed, it was common for corporations to require long working days
under extreme conditions. Modern stipulations that limit working hours are
responding to these deeply-rooted historic concerns. For example, in many
developing nations, the labor laws are often not strict, leading to so-called
‘sweatshops’ where employees work long hours in dangerous environments for
little pay. This mistreatment has been exposed in the media and now citizens
demand better treatment. The laws therefore establish basic guidelines to
prevent employees from working excessive hours.
On the whole, these laws are positive as long as they are
nuanced and enforced consistently. There are many countries where such laws
have been passed but in practice they are not followed and workers have little
recourse to report infractions. These laws must be strictly monitored including
preventing employers from firing employees who make complaints. Moreover, there
are possible exceptions. A factory worker, for example, should never be
required to work too many hours as they are likely earning a low wage and
putting their health at risk. However, many white collar workers, such as those
at a start-up, may desire to work 90+ hour workweeks due to an overriding
passion for a project. The law must discriminate between these dissimilar
cases.
In conclusion, labor laws related to maximum working hours are
meant to safeguard workers’ rights and are positive generally depending on
their execution. It is important that governments propose laws they believe are
enforceable and beneficial for the whole of society.
increasing growing
enacted laws pass regulations
protect average safeguard normal
meant supposed to be for
limit exploitive practices keep
under control taking advantage of workers
advantageous positive
if enforced well assuming they are actively followed
lawmakers the government
reforms changes
defend safeguard
labor laws rules safeguarding workers
common prevalent
corporations companies
require need
under extreme conditions in bad working environments
modern stipulations new rules
responding addressing
deeply-rooted historic
concerns worries from a long time in the past
developing nations poorer countries
strict severe
leading causing
so-called often termed
‘sweatshops’ factories where workers are mistreated
dangerous environments unsafe workplaces
little pay not much of a salary
mistreatment treated badly
exposed made people aware of it
demand better treatment ask strongly for fairer laws
establish basic guidelines put in place minimum rules
prevent stop
excessive too strong
on the whole overall
as long as assuming that
nuanced complex
enforced consistently everyone follows them all the time
passed enacted
in practice in reality
recourse way to complain
report infractions make complaints about breaking the rules
strictly monitored watched closely
preventing stopping
firing getting laid off
make complaints report a problem
possible exceptions potential cases outside the norm
factory worker person working in a factory
earning a low wage not making much money
putting their health at risk easy to get sick, hurt
white collar workers people with good office jobs
start-up new company
90+ hour workweeks really long hours
due to because of
overriding passion really strong desire
discriminate between know the different between
dissimilar cases different examples
maximum the most
safeguard protect
depending on in some cases
execution how they are done
propose laws suggest rules
enforceable can be enforced, followed
beneficial good
the whole of society everyone
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some are of the belief that advertising is largely superfluous
as most consumers are aware of their own needs. In my opinion, this is true despite
the fact that advertising can occasionally serve informative purposes.
The stated aim of the majority of advertisements is to raise
awareness among a potential audience. This applies to commercials, billboards,
and online advertising. A good example would be the short commercials that play
before videos on YouTube. These ads are designed to showcase an item or service
that, based on advanced audience targeting, would appeal to a particular
consumer or demographic. Since an individual has been targeted, it is likely
that the advertisement will be relevant and, if the ad is well-designed,
informative. For instance, this might be an advertisement for a smartphone
targeted at a photography enthusiast that includes details about hardware
specifications and picture quality.
However, the internet now allows individuals to research
products more objectively on a case by case basis. When a particular person is
interested in purchasing a new phone, because they lost an old one or they
desire a more modern one, then they can compare prices online, read customer
reviews, and consult a variety of blogs and sites like Consumer Report, which
is well known for its unbiased appraisals. There are, admittedly, situations
when individuals will uncover new products they might not have been aware of
before through ads. However, this is more likely to occur organically in daily
life if a person sees someone else, for example, with a useful smart watch. The
advent of social media and sharing of personal information online also means
that individuals have another media outlet aside from advertising that promotes
new products and services.
In conclusion, advertising is no longer needed in modern society
as there are other ways to research and discover products. This does not imply
that advertising is ineffective, merely that in a perfect world it could be
eliminated.
largely superfluous mostly not needed
aware know about
needs desires
despite the fact regardless of the truth that
occasionally serve informative
purposes sometimes can be useful
stated aim real purpose
raise awareness make people know about
potential audience possible customers
applies is relevant here
billboards big posters outside
short commercials short videos advertising products
designed sculpted
showcase showing off
service delivery services, food delivery, etc.
based on advanced audience
targeting comes from online user
habits, search history, etc.
particular consumer a given shopper
demographic group of people
it is likely that it will probably happen that
relevant related
well-designed made well
informative gives information
photography enthusiast person who loves taking photos
includes details has info about
hardware specifications how fast the phone is
picture quality how good the pictures are
research studies
objectively without bias
case by case basis in each situation
compare prices online look at similar prices
customer reviews what people reported about it
consult look into
blogs websites with personal articles
unbiased appraisals objective reviews
admittedly I would concede
uncover find
occur organically happen without being forced
useful smart watch watch that has many purposes
advent beginning of
sharing of personal information
online posting to social media
media outlet ways of spreading information
aside from besides
promotes encourages
modern society our world today
imply means
ineffective doesn’t work
merely just
in a perfect world ideally
eliminated gotten rid of
Competition
for university study is becoming increasingly strong.
Why are universities becoming more competitive?
Is this a positive or negative development?
In recent decades, there has been a rise in competitive
admission rates for universities. In my opinion, this is largely due to
improving income equality and is a positive trend on the whole.
The main cause of this phenomenon is a growth in the global
middle class. In developed countries, education levels have been rising
steadily since the beginning of the 20th century with diminishing returns as
countries reach 90% and above. Therefore, the most significant increases now
come from the developing world. In particular, Asian and Middle Eastern nations
such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and the UAE have seen dramatic growth in per capita
income, enabling families to send their children to university domestically or
abroad. Coupled with increased tax revenue this allows governments to fund
state schools and offer scholarships and grants to less privileged segments of
the population. Larger applicant pools from around the world are concomitant
with increased competition.
Despite the risk that less affluent families will be left
behind, fiercer competition is an overwhelming positive. When a large number of
applicants compete for limited number of spots, this motivates each individual
to excel. For example, a student applying to Harvard University in the 1950s
was competing against a limited number of other applications and could likely
rely on wealth and social status to gain acceptance. Nowadays, the acceptance
rate is below 5% as students from all over the world strive for a place at
Harvard. This means students must work harder to differentiate themselves by
taking on more meaningful extracurriculars, receiving higher grades, and
writing more insightful college essays. All this hard work in the aggregate
translates to personal growth even if they must settle for a lesser university.
In conclusion, rising incomes globally are responsible for
increased competitiveness for university education and this clearly benefits
both individuals and society. However, it is also important that governments
and families mitigate the potentially negative effects of competition.
recent decades the last 20 or 30 years
rise growth
competitive admission rates harder to get into
largely due to mostly because of
improving income equality people earning more money
positive trend on
the whole good overall
phenomenon trend
growth increase
global middle class people around the world earning decent salaries
developed countries rich nations
education levels how much schooling someone has
steadily at regular intervals
20th century 1900-2000
diminishing returns the rates of growth slow
reach 90% and above between 90 and 100%
significant meaningful
developing world poorer parts of the world
seen dramatic growth undergone a lot of positive change
per capita income the amount earned per person
enabling allowing for
domestically in one’s country
abroad in other countries
coupled with combined with
tax revenue money people pay the government
fund state schools give money to government schools
scholarships money for academic excellence
grants money the government gives students that they don’t have to pay
back
less privileged segments of the
population poorer people
larger applicant pools more total people applying
are concomitant with happen at the same time as a result
despite regardless of
risk threat
less affluent families poorer families
left behind neglected
fiercer more intense
applicants people who apply
motivates encourages
excel do really well
limited contained
applications what you send to apply
rely on depend on
wealth money
social status standing in society
gain acceptance get into
acceptance rate number of people admitted
differentiate separate yourself
taking on join
meaningful extracurriculars good activities outside school
insightful meaningful, smart
in the aggregate combined
translates to means
personal growth individual progress
even if regardless of
settle have to
lesser university not as good school
responsible for it is their duty
clearly benefits definitely good for
mitigate lessens the impact
potentially negative effects possible downsides
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many today have suggested that governments should prioritise
supporting their own citizenry over offering foreign aid. I strongly agree with
this statement as international interventions often do more harm than good and
governments have greater control concerning domestic assistance.
Firstly, foreign aid is notoriously difficult to manage. The
majority of countries helped by foreign aid either end up exploiting the
charity or become overly dependent. A good example of this would be the aid
sent to many African nations during times of civil turmoil. Certain corrupt governments
would often leverage the aid, whether it be food supplies or financial support,
to maintain their autocratic position. Even in the rare cases where aid reaches
its intended targets without interference from governments or non-governmental
organisations, there is a strong likelihood of establishing a dependence.
Individuals generally profit more long-term from developing characteristics
related to self-reliance rather than becoming subservient in a dependent
relationship.
Moreover, governments are able to affect greater change over
their own populace. The are many different tactics that governments can choose
ranging from funding a comprehensive social welfare net to allowing individuals
to keep more of their tax dollars and contribute to the economy. A standout
example of this would be in China where the government has tremendous sway over
both public and private entities. This ensures that their assistance is not
misused and that it supports truly vulnerable segments of the population. Their
oversight and knowledge of their own country translates to a more efficient
allocation of resources and this applies generally to governments globally.
In conclusion, there is little support for the efficacy of
foreign aid and governments can intervene most effectively in their own
nations. Therefore, foreign aid should be limited to times of extreme crisis.
suggested advised
prioritise value more
supporting helping
citizenry people in a country
over offering foreign aid instead of giving help to other countries
statement opinion
international interventions helping other countries
more harm than good hurts more than it helps
concerning relating to
domestic assistance helping within a country
notoriously famous for bad reasons
difficult to manage hard to deal with
majority most of
either one or the other
end up finally
exploiting taking advantage of
charity organisation that helps others
overly dependent moreso relying on
times of civil turmoil wars, famines, unrest, etc.
corrupt taking bribes, stealing, etc.
whether it be food supplies or
financial support if it is food or
money
maintain keep up
autocratic position complete control
rare cases exceptions
reaches its intended targets finding where it is meant to go
interference getting in the way
non-governmental organisations charities
likelihood strong chance
dependence reliance on
generally profit overall get more from
long-term over time
characteristics qualities
self-reliance independence
subservient lower than
dependent relationship needing someone
populace people in a country
tactics methods
ranging from including
funding giving money for
comprehensive social welfare
net total support for people in need
contribute give to
public citizenry
private entities companies
truly vulnerable segments actually in need parts of the country
oversight control over
translates means
efficient allocation better spreading of money
applies has to do with
globally all over the world
little support not much help
efficacy how well it works
intervene step in, interfere
limited under control
times of extreme crisis when something really bad happens (like a natural
disaster)
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many concerned policy makers today believe that raising the
legal age for acquiring a license would improve road safety. In my opinion,
though this might engender a negligible impact, there are superior solutions.
Proponents of this policy reform argue that a disproportionate
number of accidents today are caused by younger people. In most countries, it
is possible to apply for a learner’s permit at the age of 16 and soon after
that a license. Teenagers often lack the maturity and experience required to
drive responsibly and respond to challenging road conditions such as inclement
weather and reckless drivers. If the legal age for driving was increased it
would enable young people to spend more time learning the rules of the road and
becoming more mature generally. This would presumably lead to a reduction in
accidents, though there is little scientific evidence to support this
particular hypothesis.
In fact, the causes of collisions are more closely correlated
with other underlying problems. The chief cause of vehicular accidents globally
relate to driving under the influence of alcohol. Most teenagers are not able
to purchase alcohol legally and therefore the majority of accidents are caused
by individuals over the legal age for drinking. This statistic is also more
prominent among older individuals whose reflexes are in decline. Furthermore,
altering the designs of towns and cities would have far greater tangible
ramifications. Many urban environments, for example, were built long ago and
more modern understandings of motorist behaviour could be beneficial. This
might include emphasising subways and other public transport as opposed to
motorways.
In conclusion, despite the marginal relationship between
maturity and vehicular accidents, the most effective reforms would involve
stricter drinking laws and better urban planning. These changes would be more
likely to bring about the desired improvements.
concerned policy makers worried authorities
raising the legal age for
acquiring a license increasing how old
before you can drive
road safety how many accidents on the road
engender create
negligible impact marginal effect
superior solutions better remedies
proponents supporters
policy reform changes to the laws
disproportionate unequal
apply for a learner’s permit get a certificate to drive
license a document that allows you to drive
lack the maturity immature
required needed
drive responsibly drive carefully
respond to deal with
inclement weather bad weather, storms, etc.
reckless drivers dangerous driving
enable allow
rules of the road how you should drive
presumably you can assume
reduction decrease
little scientific evidence no support from studies
support this particular
hypothesis evidence this idea
in fact actually
collisions accidents
more closely correlated directly related
underlying problems foundational issues
chief cause main source
globally around the world
under the influence of alcohol drunk
purchase alcohol legally buy drinks, beers, wine, etc.
majority most of
statistic data
prominent stands out
reflexes how you react
in decline decreasing
altering changing
far greater tangible
ramifications much bigger results
urban environments cities
modern understandings newer ideas
motorist behaviour how people drive
beneficial helps
emphasising subways focusing on metros
as opposed to in contrast to
motorways highways
marginal small
stricter drinking laws regulations against DUIs
better urban planning improved cities
bring about cause
desired improvements what they want to fix
Discuss both views and give opinion.
Some feel that museums and art galleries ought to primarily
focus on showcasing local, rather than international, works. In my opinion,
despite the importance of domestic pieces for national cohesion, there is
greater value in international items.
Those who advocate for domestic art in national museums and
exhibition halls point out the unifying effect. Students in every country are
expected to learn their national history but these lessons can often feel
impersonal and abstract. The chance to visit a museum and see authentic
documents from the past revitalises history and can inspire patriotism. A
standout example of this would be The Smithsonian in the United States, which
houses key historic and cultural artifacts. Visitors from different parts of
the country and disparate ethnic groups can potentially find common ground by reflecting
on the struggles and achievements of their forefathers.
Regardless, the citizenry as a whole can learn more from
international artworks. Most people have learned their own nation’s history
well but possess limited understanding of other cultures. Going to a museum
featuring items from around the world is therefore an enlightening experience.
For example, The British Museum in London famously contains one of the world’s
largest collections of culturally significant artifacts from around the world.
By seeing and reading the plaques for a variety of artworks both young students
and adults alike have the opportunity to broaden their understanding of the
traditions, cultures, and events that underpin the modern world. Over time,
this can lead to a more inclusive, culturally diversified society.
All in all, the patriotic positives of locally themed
collections are outweighed by the educational benefits of globally sourced
institutions. There must be a degree of balance but those in positions of authority
should emphasise cultural diversity.
primarily mainly
focus on concentrate
showcasing displaying
local from that country
international from around the world
domestic local, from your country
national cohesion uniting a country
value importance
advocate support
exhibition halls art galleries
point out argue
unifying effect how it brings people together
expected predicted
national history past of a country
impersonal no personal, removed
abstract far away, not concrete
authentic documents real items
revitalises brings life back to
inspire patriotism make you feel for your country
A standout
example of this would be a good instance is
houses contains
artifacts old items
disparate ethnic groups different demographics in society
potentially possibly
find common ground have something in common
reflecting thinking back on
struggles difficulties
achievements what you get done in life
forefathers ancestors
regardless nonetheless
citizenry people in a country
as a whole all together
possess have
limited understanding not much knowing
featuring having
enlightening experience insightful time
famously well known
culturally significant
artifacts important art/historic
objects
plaques information about the items
alike both
broaden widen
traditions past ways of doing things
underpin serve as the foundation for
modern world the world today
over time as time goes on
inclusive accepting and open
culturally diversified society world with lots of different cultures
all in all in conclusion
patriotic caring about your country
locally themed collections items taken from one’s own country
outweighed stronger than
globally sourced institutions items taken from around the world
a degree of balance some equality
positions of authority high up, policymakers
emphasise focus on
What problems does this cause?
What are the solutions?
In many workplaces, there is a natural conflict between younger
and older employees. In my opinion, this can impact staff morale in a number of
ways and the best solutions involve competent management and hiring practices.
The ramifications of an age-diversified workplace relate to the
environment. When new employees join, there is often resentment from older
workers who feel threatened or must compensate for their new colleagues’
inexperience. If the younger workers are arrogant, this conflict will grow into
animosity and result in a toxic workplace culture. Similarly, if they are
unable to quickly adapt to the company, older workers will likely become
frustrated. Conversely, there is also the possibility, particularly if the work
involves emerging technologies, that the more experienced workers will lag
behind and younger workers will feel hampered. This can also lead to an
unhealthy workplace atmosphere.
The solutions for the problems detailed above relate to
management and hiring. A company that selects a qualified young employee with a
positive mindset does not have to fear negative effects on morale. After
hiring, management also plays a key role in dissolving tensions and preventing
their initial occurrences. For example, managers who know the strengths and
weaknesses of their employees well will not team up workers with contrary
personalities. Additionally, by ensuring older employees stay current with new
technology, managers will avoid the potential conflict arising from changes in
their field. Finally, the manager must also take steps to guarantee the
workplace has strong cohesion by valuing contributions from all employees,
setting a relaxed atmosphere, being transparent, and ensuring there are no
double standards due to age.
In conclusion, the issues stemming from a variety of ages working
together concern the environment and the solutions involve strong management.
In this way, these seemingly inevitable conflicts can be mitigated.
workplaces offices and other places where people work
natural conflict inevitable tension
staff morale how employees feel
involve has to do with
competent management capable bosses
hiring practices how people are employed
ramifications implications
age-diversified different ages
environment the atmosphere
resentment anger towards
threatened feel insecure
compensate make up for
inexperience not having done the work before
arrogant believing too much in yourself
conflict problems
animosity strong resentment, hatred
toxic poisonous, bad
culture atmosphere
similarly not so different
adapt change to
frustrated anger
possibility chance
particularly especially
emerging technologies innovations
lag behind not stay current with changes
hampered held back
unhealthy workplace atmosphere bad feelings among employees
detailed above described before
positive mindset good outlook
plays a key role has a big part in
dissolving tensions making people feel better, solving conflicts
preventing stopping from happening to begin with
initial occurrences happening the first time
strengths and weaknesses what you are good and bad at
team up work together
contrary personalities people likely to not get along
ensuring guaranteeing
stay current keep up to date
avoid prevent from happening
potential conflict possible fights
arising coming from
take steps act on
guarantee make sure
strong cohesion linked together well
valuing contributions considering what employees do important
setting a relaxed atmosphere making everything feel good
transparent honest and open
ensuring making sure
double standards different standards for different people
stemming from coming from
concern have to do with
seemingly inevitable appears it will happen no matter what
mitigated curged, controlled, limited
Is this a positive or negative development?
Nowadays, the robotics industry is beginning to penetrate both
home and work environments. In my opinion, advances in robotics generally and
artificial intelligence more specifically have their merits but are isolating.
Proponents of these innovations point to the eradication of
inefficiencies. This applies to both workplaces and homes. At work, there are a
range of responsibilities being carried out by humans that could be done by
robots ranging from the transportation of goods and photocopying to slightly
more robust tasks such as data input and security. As artificial intelligence
becomes more self-sufficient it is likely that companies will be able to increase
efficiency and humans can prioritise the areas where they most excel. In homes,
the situation is similar as robots may be able to take over chores such as
washing the dishing and cleaning, freeing up individuals to focus on more
pleasurable pastimes.
Nonetheless, the growth of a robotics industry exacerbates a
modern trend towards isolation. People today are seemingly more connected than
ever before thanks to the internet and social media, however, real world
connection is on the decline. The workplace and home are two of the last
remaining spaces to build meaningful, interpersonal relationships. A rise in
the number of robots, as is the case in Japan where it is now possible to
purchase a robot companion, will lead to a concomitant decrease in human
relations. It seems unlikely that people would completely stop talking to each
other but the pervasiveness of online life can serve as a warning that humanity
is only too willing to subsist on one-way, inauthentic relationships.
In conclusion, despite the benefits robots bring for
productivity, their isolating effect will make them a negative on level.
Individuals must therefore strive to maintain strong human relationships.
robotics industry companies working in making robots
penetrate enter the markets, spread into
work environments offices, factories, etc.
advances innovations
generally overall
artificial intelligence smart computers/robots
merits benefits
isolating staying all alone
proponents supporters
innovations advances
eradication getting rid of
inefficiencies not making good use of resources
range of responsibilities many different duties
carried out doing them
ranging from including
photocopying making copies of papers
slightly more robust tasks a little more complex duties
data input putting numbers into a computer
security protecting a place
self-sufficient can work on their own
efficiency not wasting resources
prioritise consider more important
most excel do their best work
situation context
take over replace
chores cleaning up at home
freeing up allowing for
focus on concentrate on
pleasurable pastimes hobbies
exacerbates makes it worse
modern trend pattern these days
towards in the direction of
isolation alone
seemingly ostensible
connected brought together
thanks to due to
real world connection talking in real life
on the decline getting worse
last remaining spaces final areas
build strengthen
interpersonal between people
as is the case in for example
now possible happens at the moment
concomitant related
human relations people together, bonds between people
pervasiveness common
can serve as a warning is
a possible sign that this will happen
only too willing to too happy to settle to do this
subsist make do with
one-way not real interaction
inauthentic not real
isolating effect making people stay alone
on level in general
strive try for
maintain keep up
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The pervasiveness of multinationals has led many to question
their relative merits. In my opinion, their impact is negative on the whole
despite legitimate economic advantages.
Those in favor of a globalised world argue that international
conglomerates bring wealth to a country. This is the result of a variety of
related effects including increased tax revenue, employment opportunities, and,
most importantly, the spread of expertise. A good example of this would be
producers of consumer electronics such as Apple. Apple provides jobs in
countries all around the world ranging from marketers and factory workers to
graphic designers and supply agents. All these employees receive salaries
typically above the average wages in a given region, which is then directed
back towards the local consumer economy. Such workers are also likely to pick
up specialised skills that they can utilize in the long-term and later pass on
to others.
Nonetheless, multinationals are negative due to their effects on
local businesses and the environment. A good example of the former point would
be the rise of fast food chains globally. Well-known brands such as McDonald’s
and KFC are in hundreds of countries and provide serious competition to local
restaurants. Their ability to offer cheap, uniform meals with limited
nutritional value that are very addictive hurt both the health of the local
populace and also make it harder for small restaurants to turn a profit and
remain in operation. Moreover, such large corporations contribute to climate
change by exploiting the use of airplanes and trucks to ship their products
globally. Combined with the plastic packaging often employed by these
companies, their impact on the environment far surpasses the minor lifestyle
choices of individuals.
In conclusion, despite meagre economic benefits arising from
multinationals, I believe this is a negative trend due to the effect on small
businesses and the environment. Governments must therefore attempt to carefully
regulate and balance the introduction of international companies.
pervasiveness ubiquity
multinationals international companies
question doubt
relative merits how much value they actually have
negative on the whole bad overall
legitimate real, justified
those in favor of supporters
globalised world world where everyone is connected
international conglomerates big companies
wealth money
this is the result of the cause of this is
variety lots of different kinds
increased tax revenue more money from taxes
employment opportunities chances to get a job
most importantly more valuable
spread of expertise people learning more
producers of consumer
electronics people who make phones,
etc.
ranging from marketers including advertisers
factory workers people working in factories
graphic designers those who design images for publications and online
supply agents those who help in supplying, getting items
average wages normal salaries
in a given region in one specific area
directed back sent back to
local consumer economy the economy in the country
pick up learn
specialised skills useful abilities
utilize take advantage of
long-term over a long period of time
later pass on to others after that tell other people
nonetheless regardless
former point mentioned before
fast food chains KFC, McDonald’s, etc.
well-known brands famous companies
provide serious competition make it very difficult
uniform meals food all the same
limited nutritional value not healthy
addictive can’t stop eating
local populace people living there
turn a profit earn money
remain in operation stay in business
contribute add to
exploiting tasking advantage of
ship their products globally send items around the world
combined with in conjunction with
plastic packaging wrappers, boxes, etc.
far surpasses much more than
minor not major
meagre insignificant
arising from coming from
carefully regulate control well
balance keep equal
introduction entering the market
Many
students find it difficult to pay attention at school.
What are the reasons for this?
What could be done to solve this problem?
Many students these days find it increasingly difficult to pay
attention during lessons. In my opinion, this is partly a natural reaction that
has been exacerbated by technology and the solutions lie in school reform.
Students struggle to stay engaged both due to a natural
predisposition and the pervasive impact of screen time. Students throughout
history have always wanted to escape their school lessons. This is because
learning is difficult and provides little pleasure itself relative to both
passive and active pastimes like hanging out with friends, watching TV,
listening to music, or playing sports. Moreover, the advent of the ubiquitous
internet era and portable devices such as smartphones has had an exponential effect
on attention spans and diversionary priorities. Most students today are
addicted to short videos and posts on social media networks and therefore
struggle to follow the intricate arguments of lengthy lectures and extended
readings.
On a small scale, individuals can remedy these problems through
sheer willpower but for broader change schools must play an active role. The
most immediate fix would be to ban phones. This is difficult since phones serve
practical purposes such as allowing students to call their parents or book a
ride home, but they could be taken at the beginning of the day and returned
when school finishes. Another step schools could take would be to modernise the
curriculum and account for reduced attention spans. Lessons could be shorter and
could include more interactivity in order to stimulate learning, rather than
the passive learning environment that has led to daydreaming students for
generations.
In conclusion, although this trend is likely an irreversible
part of human nature and progress, schools can implement changes to curb its
effects. It is important for parents and governments to be supportive of such
reforms as well.
these days nowadays
increasingly difficult harder
pay attention focus, concentrate
partly somewhat
exacerbated made worse
solutions lie in remedies include
school reform changes to schools
stay engaged pay attention
natural predisposition normal inclination
pervasive throughout
screen time spending time on phones, computers
escape get away from
provides little pleasure
itself doesn’t make you happy on
your own
relative to compared to
passive not active
active pastimes not passive activities
advent beginning of
ubiquitous common
internet era online
portable devices smartphones, tablets, etc.
exponential effect gets worse and worse quickly
attention spans amount of time you can focus
diversionary priorities paying attention to other things
addicted can’t stop using
struggle have difficulty with
intricate arguments complex discussions
lengthy lectures long talks
extended readings long texts
small scale not applying to many people
remedy fix
sheer willpower just not doing it
broader common
play an active role not a passive part
most immediate fix fastest remedy
ban can’t use anymore
serve practical purposes real reasons to do it
book a ride home use a ride-hailing app
taken not allowed to keep
returned given back
modernise make modern and new
curriculum what is studied in school
account for pay attention to
interactivity not a passive experience
stimulate make more interesting
rather than instead of
passive learning
environment not active classes
daydreaming imagining
generations many years
irreversible can’t be changed
progress moving forward
implement changes make reforms
curb slow down
supportive helpful
reforms changes
Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?
The ability to travel to remote destinations such as the arctic
and various islands contains advantages related to travel and research as well
as disadvantages regarding environmental preservation. In my opinion, the pros
decisively outweigh the cons.
On the one hand, the tradeoffs of being able to travel to remote
areas are environmental. Most remote locations are untouched by the rapid
industrialization of the last two centuries and despite the best efforts of
local governments there is likely to be some contamination from tourism. A good
example of this would be various South Pacific islands. The Philippine
archipelago in particular is a popular tourist destination and this has
resulted in increased litter and development of the natural environment for
tourist friendly infrastructure such as hotels and restaurants. Similarly, the
cultural environment for locals is at risk. Numerous indigenous cultures
struggle to maintain their unique heritage as foreigners and modern products
pour into previously isolated regions.
On the other hand, the main positives relate to travel for
pleasure and research. Locations that are not currently occupied by traditional
societies were effectively without purpose. Many of them, ranging from remote
islands to terrain with inhospitable weather such as Mt. Everest, now offer
attractive experiences for the intrepid traveller. For researchers, the
benefits are even more tangible. The best known example of this was the
Galapagos islands where Darwin sailed more than a hundred years ago conducted
foundational research for his theory of evolution. Since then, the ability to
explore new areas has resulted in thousands of discoveries and advances related
to archaeology, medicine, marine life, and the environment.
In conclusion, despite the injurious impacts of tourism, it is
my strong belief that the opening up of unexplored regions is a net positive.
However, governments must still regulate such travel to mitigate the inherent
dangers.
remote destinations places far away
arctic near Antarctica
contains has
regarding as it concerns
preservation keeping safe
pros advantages
decisively outweigh definitely stronger than
cons disadvantages
on the one hand on one side
tradeoffs downsides
untouched never developed
rapid industrialization lots of machines, etc.
best efforts trying their hardest
local governments the countries themselves
contamination hurting
various South Pacific islands small islands in the Pacific ocean
Philippine archipelago the islands around the Philippines
popular tourist destination place tourists go
infrastructure buildings, roads, etc.
similarly relatedly
cultural environment the culture, traditions
risk threat
numerous indigenous cultures many native peoples
struggle try hard
maintain their unique heritage preserve traditions
foreigners people from other countries
pour into put a lot into
isolated regions places far away
on the other hand however
positives advantages
research studies
currently occupied right now those living there
traditional societies old cultures
effectively without purpose essentially no reason
ranging from including
terrain land
inhospitable weather bad weather
offer attractive experiences make people want to go there
intrepid traveller adventurous people
researchers scientists
tangible real
Galapagos islands some remote islands
sailed went by boat
conducted foundational research important studies
theory of evolution idea that we evolved from animals
resulted in caused
discoveries found out that
archaeology bones, artifacts
medicine medical science
marine life sea animals
environment nature
injurious hurts
strong belief powerful conviction
opening up allowing people in
unexplored regions places people have not been
net positive overall good
regulate keep in check
mitigate control
inherent dangers risks sure to come up
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Many today feel that it is crucial for younger generations to
follow the traditions of their country rather than their own individual
inclinations. In my opinion, though there is value to such self-expression,
upholding tradition is more important.
Those who are in support of younger people prioritising their
individuality argue this is key to happiness. The true pursuit of happiness
requires an individual to define their goals and accomplish them on their own
terms. A counterexample illustrating this point would be the rigid, hierarchical
societies of the past wherein women had fewer rights of self-expression. Most
women in the past did not receive an education and were effectively blocked
from having a career or life outside the traditional confines of a housewife.
The narrow range of experiences on offer meant that most women were unable to
struggle to find their own version of happiness.
However, since the stigmas of society today are less in conflict
with individuals, it is logical to prioritise tradition. Traditions themselves
may be forgotten if not respected and adhered to. For example, in many
indigenous cultures, younger people are more interested in migrating from their
ancestral homes to the cities to lead a modern life. If this occurs in enough
numbers, then thousands of unique, distinct cultures will fade into the
seemingly inevitable global monoculture. Once this happens, there will be no
way to retrieve and enliven past traditions and they will become relics of
history rather than living monuments to diversity, creativity, and human
ingenuity.
In conclusion, though individual freedom is important,
particularly for repressed segments of society, there is greater value in
preserving past ways of life. This is difficult to enforce but governments
should seek to encourage the latter instead of the former.
crucial very important
younger generations young people
follow the traditions maintain ways of the past
rather than instead of
individual inclinations what people want to do
value consider important
self-expression individuality
upholding maintaining
prioritising considering more important
argue debate
key important
true pursuit of happiness real trying to be satisfied
requires needs
define make up
accomplish achieve
on their own terms as they want
counterexample example showing the opposite case
rigid strict, not flexible
hierarchical part of an ordering structure
wherein in which
fewer rights of self-expression less ability to do what they want
effectively blocked in essence stopped
outside the traditional
confines of a housewife beyond
the normal role of women
narrow range of experiences on
offer limited amount of
opportunities available
meant implied
unable to struggle can’t attempt
version kind of
stigmas negative stereotypes
less in conflict with not fighting against
logical rational
prioritise consider more important
forgotten not remembered
respected venerated
adhered respected
indigenous cultures native groups
migrating leaving to go to
ancestral homes places where you are from
lead a modern life result in new ways of living
enough numbers more than enough people
unique special
distinct unique
fade into disappear
seemingly inevitable global
monoculture apparently unchangeable
similarity of cultures
retrieve get back
enliven bring to life
relics of history old reminders
living monuments living reminders
diversity difference
human ingenuity creativity
particularly for especially
repressed segments of society minorities
preserving keeping alive
enforce make sure it happens
seek try to find
latter one mentioned second
former one mentioned before
To what extant do you agree or disagree?
Many city and town planners believe that trees, instead of
residential buildings, are crucial for the development of the modern city. In
my agreement, I agree with this contention despite the legitimate benefits to
increased housing in cities.
Those who would rather build more residential buildings argue
that both town and city populations are surging. Population figures globally
are on the rise and it is logical to provide quality housing for all citizens.
This is particularly true in rapidly growing nations such as China and India.
The migration of individuals from the countryside to cities and outlying towns
means that higher residential numbers have led to deteriorating sanitary
conditions and increased pressure on the services that sustain cities such as
public transportation. More housing would at least partly alleviate the issues
that urban planners face and allow for more cogent plans for densely populated
environments.
Nonetheless, the importance of trees transcends the purely
practical. For the average city and town resident, trees have aesthetic value.
Take for example some of the best known cities in the world including Paris and
New York City. The parks and gardens stand out and mitigate living apart from
the natural world. Moreover, the more underprivileged segments of society are
unlikely to be able to afford trips outside their immediate living vicinity.
There is therefore a good chance that many younger children, particularly those
in inner cities, will rarely experience nature and their lives will be limited
to the dreary confines of the city. Over time, this can have a demoralising
effect that is evidenced in the defeatist attitude common among less affluent
children.
In conclusion, the importance of housing to meeting rising
population demands does not overshadow the importance of trees. Towns and
cities must naturally balance these concerns to foster better living
environments for residents.
city and town planners people who map out and plan places
instead of residential
buildings in place of housing
crucial key
modern city cities of the 21st century
contention despite opinion regardless of
legitimate benefits real advantages
rather prefer
argue claim
surging increasing a lot
population figures globally number of people around the world
logical rational
provide quality housing give good homes
particularly true especially the case
rapidly growing nations countries growing much faster
migration leaving/moving
outlying towns suburbs
higher residential
numbers more people living there
deteriorating sanitary conditions less and less clean
increased pressure more stress
services transport, medicine, police, etc.
sustain keep alive
public transportation buses, metros, etc.
at least partly alleviate at the minimum somewhat contain
urban planners face people who plan cities must deal with
cogent plans logical future plans
densely populated environments cities with lots of people
nonetheless regardless
trees transcends is more important than
purely practical just what is necessary
average normal
aesthetic value beauty
stand out make an impression
mitigate lessen
apart away from
natural world nature
underprivileged segments of
society poor people
afford can pay for
outside their immediate
living vicinity
far from their home
particularly especially
inner cities deep in cities
rarely not often
limited not expansive
dreary confines sad surroundings
over time over period of time
demoralising effect demotivating
evidenced there is evidence for it
defeatist attitude negative outlook
common among prevalent in
less affluent children poor kids
demands what people need
overshadow be stronger than
naturally balance these
concerns of course keep both in
check
foster better living
environments encourage a nice place
to
live
Is this a positive or negative development?
Increasingly large segments of the population now receive their
news online, rather than from the physical editions of newspapers. In my
opinion, though the conveniences of technology are self-evident, this trend is
a negative on the whole.
Proponents of modern habits of reading news argue it is more
convenient. Examples of this abound. Consumers can search Google or Apple News
and locate articles from thousands of online papers and websites, enabling them
to access the news that matters the most to them more efficiently. Furthermore,
they can do this while they are commuting to work or during various periods of
inactivity throughout the day. It is even possible on most websites to listen
to an audio version of the news, a tremendous advance for the visually
impaired. All these modern features of online news only hint at the innovations
to come and validate the decline of the publishing industry.
Nonetheless, the quality of online news is considerably lower on
most websites. There are exceptions, such as websites that specialise in a
given subject-area and employ intelligent contributors, however, the vast
majority of the online news industry cynically pursues advertising revenue at
any cost. Most stories are written hastily, the headlines are misleading, and
the news articles themselves may be rife with unchecked facts and
unprofessional prose. Retractions to reporting errors go unnoticed. The
situation developing from this is that most individuals now read the news
either to confirm their biases and gain a momentary burst of endorphins or out
of outrage, so-called ‘hate-reading’, for the very same reason. It is therefore
justified to claim that the relationship between publisher and audience is
exploitive, not educational.
In conclusion, easier access to news does not outweigh the bad
habits instilled by online news. Governments will likely never regulate this
industry properly so it falls to individuals to make more informed choices when
consuming media.
increasingly large segments of
the population more and more people
rather than instead of
physical editions real copies
conveniences easier to use
self-evident obvious
trend pattern
on the whole in general
proponents supporters
modern habits the way people act now
argue claim
convenient easy and simple to use
abound are common
consumers customers
locate articles find news
enabling allowing for
access get to
matters the most to them care about the most
efficiently without wasting energy
while at the same time
commuting travelling to work/school
during various periods of
inactivity throughout the day when
not doing something
possible could happen
audio version can be listened to
tremendous advance huge step forward
visually impaired hard to see
modern features new abilities
hint look forward to
innovations to come changes in the future
validate justify
decline decrease
publishing industry magazines, newspapers, books
nonetheless regardless
considerably lower much less
exceptions outliers
specialise focus on
subject-area field of work
employ intelligent contributors hire smart writers
vast majority most of
online news industry websites posting news
cynically pursues just trying to get
advertising revenue money from ads
at any cost unethically
written hastily written quickly
misleading not accurate
rife with unchecked facts full of mistakes
unprofessional prose badly written
retractions mistakes corrected later
reporting errors mistakes
unnoticed not seen
situation context
confirm their biases agree with their views
gain a momentary burst of
endorphins feel happy for a minute
out of outrage in anger
so-called allegedly
‘hate-reading‘
reading just because you hate an article
very same reason exact same cause
therefore justified that’s why it should be so
claim argue
relationship interaction
publisher magazines, sites, etc.
exploitive taking advantage of
educational making your smarter
outweigh stronger than
instilled encouraged
regulate make laws about
properly well
falls to lies with
make more informed choices make better choices
consuming media reading/listening to news
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many today claim that cities and towns have a responsibility to
erect communal, outdoor spaces for residents. I am in agreement with this
viewpoint, though I concede there are other important areas requiring
attention.
Detractors to significant funding for public spaces argue there
are more pressing budgetary concerns. All governments must balance allocations
between key areas ranging from healthcare and education to housing and economic
growth. One common policy proposal is that the majority of problems could be
dealt with through more robust governmental economic intervention. The standout
examples underpinning such a contention are developed countries in North
America, the United States and East Asia. Once the economies of those nations
started to grow rapidly, citizens were able to provide for themselves and their
families, lessening the burden on governments to fight crime, fund education,
extend healthcare benefits, and so on.
Nonetheless, public spaces meet a wide variety of needs for the
average city or town resident. Sufficient public space is typically considered
one with high quality of life. Take New York City for example. Before Central
Park was constructed, the island was mainly a place of business and people
lived outside the city. Central Park’s development now allows residents to go
for runs in the park, attend cultural events such as outdoor plays, hang out
with friends in nature, and play various sports. These activities are some of
the chief reasons to live in a densely populated city and they bring a vitality
to the city that, more than any other single factor other than perhaps
employment opportunities, justifies urban life.
In conclusion, despite legitimate doubts, it is my belief that
heavy investment into public spaces is warranted due to the diverse range of
ramifications for a citizenry. Governments should endeavour to prioritise such
investment.
claim suppose
responsibility duty
erect communal build community
outdoor spaces places outside
I am in agreement with this
viewpoint I agree
concede will grant that
requiring attention need people caring about
detractors critics
significant funding a lot of money
public spaces communal places such as libraries, sculptures, parks
more pressing budgetary
concerns more important areas to
fund
balance allocations giving money to
key areas essential sectors
ranging from including
housing where people live
economic growth more money being earned
common policy proposal often suggested
majority most of
dealt with handle
robust strong
intervention interfere with
standout outlier
underpinning foundational
contention opinion
grow rapidly increase a lot
provide for allow for
lessening reducing
burden duty
extend healthcare benefits improve hospitals and care
nonetheless regardless
public spaces outdoor public places
wide variety of needs many requirements
sufficient enough
high quality of life good standard of living
constructed built
go for runs take a jog
attend cultural
events go to plays, museums, etc.
outdoor plays theater outside
chief reasons main justifications
densely populated crowded
vitality life
more than any other single
factor the most important element
perhaps maybe
justifies urban life good reason for living in a city
despite legitimate doubts regardless of the valid criticisms
heavy investment lots of money put into it
warranted deserved
diverse variety
ramifications results
citizenry people, residents
endeavour try
Is this a positive or negative development?
The advent of a digital society has led to greater vulnerability
in terms of the person information stored online. In my opinion, these
associated dangers are significant but do not outweigh the benefits of a more
convenient user experience.
Concerned policymakers often argue that sensitive information registered
online fosters widespread fraud. The majority of individuals store some degree
of information online whether it is as simple as their address and phone number
or more important data such as social security numbers or banking details.
Naturally, this information can be stolen. The variety of methods used to steal
information, including phishing emails and actual hacking of websites, pose
challenges for law enforcement and can lead to crimes such as identity theft.
These novel vulnerabilities that all consumers must become aware of are likely
to remain a permanent fixture of online life.
Nonetheless, the above instances are rare and storing
information online allows for greater ease of access. The best evidence for
this is that the vast majority of individuals have decided to store personal
information online despite growing cognizance of the risks. For example, it is
an afterthought to log in to a website, accept the cookies and store a
username, and password. The next time the user logs in, the process only takes
seconds and this small savings in terms of effort and time is justifiably
meaningful in the aggregate. Moreover, in the case of online market trading
platforms and banking websites, consumers are willing to divulge more
confidential information to enjoy the conveniences of conducting transactions
faster.
In conclusion, the tradeoffs associated with storing important
data online do not make it a negative on the whole. Consumers, corporations,
and governments must take steps to ensure safety, while being mindful that
saving time and effort are two of the more fundamental human priorities.
advent beginning
digital society people increasingly online
greater vulnerability more risk
in terms of regarding
person information stored
online data about yourself on
websites
associated dangers related risks
significant massive
outweigh stronger than
convenient user experience easy for users
concerned policymakers worried officials
sensitive information
registered person information on
websites
fosters widespread fraud creates a lot of online crime
majority most of
some degree of some level of
data information
social security numbers ID numbers
banking details data about your banking information
naturally of course
stolen taken
variety of methods many ways
phishing emails emails designed for fraud
hacking breaking into a website
pose challenges have risks
law enforcement police
identity theft stealing information about you
novel vulnerabilities new threats
become aware of now know about
remain still
permanent fixture unchanging part
online life the online world
nonetheless regardless
rare not common
greater ease of access easier to use
vast majority of most of
despite growing cognizance
of regardless of more awareness
of
afterthought not considered much
accept the cookies allow websites to track you
process logging in
small savings little advantage
justifiably meaningful in the
aggregate really means something
all added together
online market trading platforms banks, stock brokerages online
willing will do it
divulge give over information
confidential secret
conducting transactions making purchases, etc.
tradeoffs downsides
associated with related to
on the whole overall
take steps begin to
ensure safety make sure it is secure
being mindful being aware of
two of the more
fundamental human priorities basic to human nature
Some
countries import a large amount of food from other parts of the world.
To what extent is this a postive or negative trend?
Nations are increasingly importing food products and relying
less on domestic supplies. In my opinion, though this has narrow economic
drawbacks, it is a net positive.
The negative aspects of increased imports relate to domestic
agriculture. In the United States, for example, there are trade agreements with
a variety of countries enabling customers to purchase foreign products that
cannot be locally grown, are only available seasonally or are prohibitively
expensive. Any local farmers who rely on higher prices for specialised crops or
expect a surge in sales when the seasons change, must now account for the
global nature of agriculture. If they are not in a position to begin exporting
to other countries themselves, there is a strong likelihood they will suffer a
serious decline in their living standards and may have to consider the
possibility of new employment.
However, the cases above are often mitigated with government
subsidies and the benefits of imports for the average shopper are substantial.
In the past, customers resigned themselves to a limited range of local produce,
restricted by both geography and the seasons. Nowadays, imports make it
possible to eat exotic fruits and vegetables that cannot be grown in one’s own
country. Aside from the luxuries now available, there are also more utilitarian
benefits. Countries with large populations and limited arable land, such as in
Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, can make deals that leverage their more
abundant natural resources. The tangible result is that previously malnourished
residents now have greater access to nutritious foods, which in turn raises
both life expectancy and quality of life.
In conclusion, the limited economic collateral of a thriving
import and export agricultural market do not outweigh the advantages gained for
both affluent and underprivileged segments of a population.
increasingly importing bring in more products from other countries
relying less not need as much
domestic supplies what is made in your country
narrow economic drawbacks small disadvantages for the economy
net positive overall good
negative aspects disadvantages
relate to concern
domestic agriculture farms in your country
trade agreements deal between countries
a variety of countries many nations
enabling allowing for
purchase buy
locally grown grown in your country
only available seasonally can only be bought sometimes
prohibitively expensive too much
rely on need
specialised crops rare, specific foods
surge increase a lot
now account for consider now
global nature all countries involved
not in a position can’t
strong likelihood good chance
suffer a serious decline decrease a lot
living standards how you are living
consider the possibility think about the chance
mitigated weakened
government subsidies government support/money
average shopper normal consumer
substantial a lot
resigned themselves given up and now happy with
limited range not many types
local produce grown in nearby farms
restricted by limited by
geography land, terrain
eat exotic fruits eat rare fruits
aside from besides
luxuries not necessary
utilitarian benefits real impact
limited arable land not much farming land
Sub-Saharan Africa countries in and below the Sahara desert
make deals sign constracts
leverage exploit
abundant natural resources lots of resources
tangible result real effect
previously malnourished
residents starving before
greater access more ability to get
nutritious healthy
in turn then
life expectancy longevity
quality of life standards of living
limited economic collateral just hurts a bit
thriving doing well
outweigh stronger than
affluent rich
underprivileged segments of a
population poorer residents
Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.
Though crime rates have fallen to historic lows in most nations,
there are many who feel further action is still required. In my opinion, there
should always be criminal prevention efforts, however, on level, crime is being
opposed adequately.
Those who believe crime requires greater prioritisation identify
its effects, particularly in underserved segments of a population. Crime is
still pervasive in areas rife with poverty, such as in neglected neighborhoods
in inner cities. An illustrative example of this would be the infamous favelas of
Brazil. Residents in these communities must remain constantly vigilant for
muggings and robberies and there is a high likelihood that in their lifetime
they will come into contact with criminal elements. The causes of such
crime-ridden slums are complex but the results for millions of individuals in
cities around the world deserve meaningful countermeasures.
Nonetheless, criminal activity already receives sufficient
funding as evidenced by its decline. Crime is best tackled through a
combination of economic, educational, and criminal justice reform and as
developing countries become wealthier, there is a concomitant effect on crime.
Criminality is therefore being addressed and it would be unrealistic to expect
a world without crime given the realities of human nature. Instead of diverting
more money towards an area on the mend already, governments can continue to
also fund schools, hospitals, state universities, defense, infrastructure and a
host of other areas that may themselves indirectly contribute to eradicating
crime.
In conclusion, though crime impacts the daily lives of many
citizens, it is already being successfully curbed and there are other key areas
deserving of budgetary consideration. Governments must nonetheless balance
these concerns and remain vigilant towards changes in this promising pattern.
crime rates how many people commit crimes
fallen going down
historic lows lowest points in history
further action more effort
required needed
criminal prevention efforts trying to stop crime
on level overall
opposed adequately being countered well
greater prioritisation identify need
more resources focus on
underserved segments of a
population poorer people
pervasive goes throughout
rife with poverty lots of poor people
neglected not payed attention to
inner cities deep in the city
illustrative example instance that shows this well
infamous favelas notorious slums of Brazil
residents people living there
remain constantly
vigilant always pay attention
muggings stealing money
robberies taking things
high likelihood good chance of
lifetime whole life
come into contact with meet with
criminal elements people involved in crime
crime-ridden slums neighborhoods with a lot of crime
complex complicated
deserve meaningful
countermeasures should be countered
effectively
criminal activity committing crimes
sufficient funding enough money
evidenced by supported by
best tackled number 1 way to fix
combination joint
criminal justice reform changing laws related to crime
concomitant related/caused by
addressed dealt with
unrealistic not feasible
realities facts
human nature facts of how people are
diverting sending in another direction
on the mend getting better
fund give money to
defense military, etc.
infrastructure roads, buildings, etc.
host of other areas many other places
indirectly not directly
eradicating crime getting rid of crime
daily lives everyday life
citizens residents
successfully curbed adequately cut down on
key areas main parts
budgetary consideration thinking about money
nonetheless regardless
balance these concerns keep everything in perspective
remain vigilant keep paying attention
promising pattern hopeful trend
Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.
There are many who claim hosting the Olympics unproductively
diverts money from more essential areas. In my opinion, despite these valid
objections, there is still great value in the unifying impact of the Olympics.
Critics argue there are urgent needs that should be prioritised
over a sporting event. This applies to every nation but particularly developing
ones. For example, the Olympics in Brazil in 2016 led to mass unrest and
protests as locals felt too much money was being spent on the event and not
enough on helping to alleviate worsening conditions among underprivileged
segments of society. The government could have instead improved the
infrastructure used by millions daily, invested more in education, or built
more hospitals. These allocations of the federal budget would not only serve an
immediate purpose but also have a longer lasting effect than the Olympics.
Nonetheless, most Olympic games are sponsored by developed
nations and they occur very rarely which justifies their efforts to unify. The
countries competing in the Olympics often have fraught international
relationships and competition can counter-intuitively decrease tensions.
Supporters may root against other countries at specific instances, such as when
watching a football match, but they are united in their love of sports and the
shared viewing experience. This has the subtle but powerful unconscious result
of fostering greater empathy between diverse ethnic and national groups. When
an individual roots for their country and their athletes, and sees other
individuals partaking in the same ritual, they will realise that association
within a larger tribe is an essential, common human trait.
In conclusion, despite the seemingly inefficient allocation of
funds, the Olympics are a mass, cooperative effort that has tremendous value.
Therefore, countries should consider hosting the games a great honor.
claim argue
hosting the Olympics being in charge of the games
unproductively diverts uselessly takes away
more essential areas more important parts
despite regardless of
valid objections legitimate concerns
still great value continues to be worth it
unifying impact keeps people together
critics those who are against this
urgent needs necessary now
prioritised over made more important than
sporting event Olympics, games, matches, etc.
applies is relevant to
particularly especially
mass unrest people unhappy
protests unrest
locals those who live in a country
alleviate worsening
conditions make things better
underprivileged segments of
society poorer parts of a country
instead improved better choice to help
infrastructure streets, roads, buildings, etc.
allocations how money is assigned
federal budget government’s money to spend
serve an immediate purpose useful now
longer lasting effect more helpful in the future
sponsored by hosted by
efforts to unify try to bring people together
fraught international
relationships conflicts between
countries
counter-intuitively decrease
tensions against expectations
help pacify
root against be against the other side
specific instances isolated moments
united brought together
shared viewing experience everyone watching at the same time
subtle less obvious
unconscious result without meaning to the effect
fostering greater empathy increasing understanding between peoples
diverse ethnic and national
groups different races,
nationalities
partaking taking part in
ritual ceremony
association relationship
tribe group
essential key
common human trait everyone does this
inefficient allocation not a good way to spend
mass everyone together
cooperative effort all working together
tremendous value lots of importance
consider think about
a great honor very important
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Some today advocate the teaching of food science and preparation
in schools as a key 21st century skill. In my opinion, though the expense is a
potential obstacle, such a proposal is justifiable.
Opponents of this proposed curriculum shift argue that it would
only benefit more affluent school systems. The majority of schools,
particularly those in inner cities and remote rural regions, struggle already
to maintain quality facilities and employ experienced, dedicated teachers. The
idea of building a kitchen for student-use and keeping it stocked with
ingredients as well as the sophisticated equipment required to teach about and
practice molecular gastronomy is simply unrealistic. Critics justly point out
that such money would be better spent maintaining more essential infrastructure
such as the fields, classrooms, and school buildings themselves.
Nonetheless, assuming government funding is available, this
would be an ideal method of combining a practical skill with scientific theory.
One of the most common complaints among students after graduation is that the
vast majority of their studies were impractical and did not prepare them for
adulthood. Learning to cook on its own would go a long way towards answering
this criticism. However, the true gains would come from the linking of theory
and practice. Many scientific theories are abstract and difficult to both
understand and retain later in life. The practical application in cooking would
not only help students grasp the concepts initially but repeated review from
making meals in one’s daily life would likely ensure permanent understanding.
In conclusion, food science may seem trivial and its application
might pose financial hurdles but it is worth enacting in order to educate
students well. Where possible, governments should allocate the necessary
funding.
advocate are in favour of
food science molecular gastronomy
preparation making
key 21st century skill important future ability
expense cost
potential obstacle possible hurdle
proposal idea
justifiable good reason for
opponents critics
proposed curriculum shift suggested
change to what is studied in school
argue point out
affluent school systems rich schools
majority most of
particularly especially
inner cities tough parts of cities
remote rural regions far away countryside
struggle have difficulty with
maintain quality
facilities keep the school up to
standard
employ experienced hire good
dedicated caring
student-use for students to use
keeping it stocked full of supplies
as well as also
sophisticated equipment fancy kitchen appliances
molecular gastronomy food science
unrealistic not feasible
critics justly point out opponents rightly argue
maintaining more essential
infrastructure keep up the quality of
more important buildings
fields pitches
nonetheless regardless
assuming if it is true
ideal method perfect way
combining putting together
practical skill useful ability
scientific theory possible explanation for nature
most common complaints among many are upset about
graduation finishing school
vast majority by far the most of
impractical not useful
adulthood as adults
go a long way towards answering
this criticism helps to combat
true gains real benefits
linking combining
scientific theories ideas
abstract not practical, concrete
retain later in life remember later
practical application can be used in the real world
grasp the concepts initially understand
right away
repeated review revise over and over
making meals in one’s daily
life cooking
ensure permanent understanding make sure they retain the info
trivial unimportant
application use
pose financial hurdles challenges related to money
enacting passing
where possible if it can be done
allocate give money to
necessary funding needed money
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Critics of the quality of televisions shows these days argue
that more educational programming related to key social issues is needed. In my
opinion, though there are legitimate reasons to support such reforms, I believe
television should be mainly for entertainment.
Those in favour of raising awareness of social problems claim
that television is not currently serving a socially viable purpose. The most
popular shows are dramas, comedies, and reality TV, all of which are purely for
entertainment. If the time wasted on such shows was diverted towards
educational programs, this would have a ripple effect on society at large. For
example, more informed news shows about underprivileged segments of society
could lead to outpourings of empathy and encourage a nuanced understanding of
the causes of poverty. This greater awareness would translate to real action in
many cases. Powerful figures and small activists alike could contribute to
socially beneficial causes.
Nonetheless, the actual impact of the proposed changes is
questionable and most people do not watch TV out of altruism. Raising awareness
of social issues, depending on how it is handled and the self-righteousness of
the programs, is just as likely to provoke a negative backlash and hinder
progress. Moreover, people watch TV in order to relax and let their minds rest
or to experience a feeling of excitement. Forcing viewers to think about
complex societal problems would simply discourage them and they would instead
watch videos on YouTube or Netflix. It would be impossible to regulate all
media and there would be public uproar at the attempt.
In conclusion, though it would be ideal for television to inform
citizens of social problems, this solution is not practical. Individuals will
always seek out the pastimes that entertain, not educate, them the most.
critics those who argue against it
quality how good it is
these days recently
educational programming shows that are informative
key social issues imprtant problems related to society
legitimate reasons good justifications
reforms changes
those in favour of raising
awareness supporters of this opinion
claim argue
not currently serving not helping
socially viable purpose good for society
reality TV shows without scripts about real people
purely entirely
wasted not used properly
diverted towards pushed in a different direction
ripple effect trickle down impact
at large in general
more informed news shows TV shows that report well
underprivileged segments poor parts
lead to outpourings of empathy cause people to feel bad
encourage motivate
nuanced understanding complex understanding of
poverty being poor
greater awareness know more about
translate means
powerful figures famous, rich people
small activists alike individuals as well
contribute add to
socially beneficial causes helps society
nonetheless regardless
actual impact real effect
proposed changes what they want to reform
questionable dubious
out of altruism not for personal gain
depending on has to do with
handled dealt with
self-righteousness feeling superior to others
provoke instigate
negative backlash overreaction
hinder progress hurt the movement
let their minds rest relax
experience watch
forcing have to
complex societal problems nuanced issues in society
discourage not motivate
instead in fact
regulate make laws about
public uproar people angry
attempttry
ideal perfect
inform give information about
not practical impractical, not realistic
pastimes hobbies
To
succeed in a business, one needs to know maths.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many people claim that a key ingredient to success in the
business world is a firm understanding of math. In my opinion, although there
is some truth to this, it is not a crucial factor.
Proponents of the importance of math argue its usefulness in a
variety of business contexts. For all business majors, mathematics courses in
university are a requirement for graduation. This is because it is essential
not only for those running a small business or shop to be able to do good
book-keeping but also as a foundational skill for Wall Street brokers, bankers,
entrepreneurs, accountants, and marketers. Without a solid understanding of the
mathematical principles underlying the decision-making in those fields it is
difficult to truly innovate and excel.
Nonetheless, there are more vital elements to business success.
The math a business needs to prosper can be handled by dedicated specialists.
It is more important for a potential business person to understand the nuances
of the market, display leadership qualities, be decisive, and possess generally
above-average intelligence. A good example of this would be an entrepreneur
like Steve Jobs. He famously only hired quality specialists and prioritised for
himself learning how to be an effective leader and motivate his employees well.
The key to success is therefore segmenting a business into different areas all
under the capable hands of a visionary leader.
In conclusion, mathematical ability can help inform businesses
but it is not as essential as other management qualities. The ideal business
person has an understanding of their strengths and weaknesses and brings
together a team of strong complements.
key ingredient essential part
business world where business people work
firm understanding of math know math well
crucial factor important element
proponents supporters
usefulness practicality
variety of business contexts many different jobs
majors studying
requirement must do
graduation finishing school
running a small business having your own business
book-keeping keeping track of your earnings/spending
foundational skill needed
Wall Street brokers people who trade stocks
bankers people who work in banks
entrepreneurs people starting their own business
accountants people working with finances
marketers people working in advertising
solid understanding good grasp
mathematical principles
underlying the math that
underpins/supports
decision-making making decisions
fields jobs, areas
truly innovate think of new ideas
excel do better than others
nonetheless regardless
vital elements key parts
prosper do rewally well
handled by dedicated
specialists dealt with by people
who know it well
potential business person will get into business someday
nuances complexity
display leadership qualities are good leaders
decisive can make decisions
possess generally above-average
intelligence are smart
entrepreneur person who starts a business
famously well-known
hired quality specialists employed experts
prioritised placed value on
effective leader good boss
motivate his employees well encourage those who work for him
key to success ingredient to doing well
segmenting a business dividing up a company
under the capable hands
of under good leadership
visionary leader boss who can see the future
inform contribute to
not as essential as not as important as
management qualities leadership qualities
ideal perfect
strengths and weaknesses what you’re good and bad at
brings together combines
strong complements those who can support you
Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.
As advertising becomes increasingly invasive, there has been an
increase in debates concerning its effects. In my opinion, advertising is on
the whole a negative due to its impact on the average individual, though it is
clearly beneficial for businesses.
It is hard to argue against the positive boon that advertising
has brought to a variety of industries. In the 1950s and 60s, the growth of
American advertising in particular ushered in an age of rampant commercial
opportunity. Corporations ranging from automoblie manufacturers to airlines to
soft drink companies took advantage of the emerging medium of television to reach
wider audiences. By appealing to basic human psychology, they were able to tap
into a nearly limitless market that eventually expanded globally and is now
supported by ruthlessly efficient and profitable online marketing methods.
Nonetheless, advertising mainly serves to distract and entice.
The purpose of advertisements is not simply to inform. Consumers can find
information about products from a number of sources of their own volition.
Advertising attracts individuals and creates new desires that distract from
healthier modes of living. For example, the average person would be better
served by eating a healthy diet and exercising regularly. However, ubiquitous
advertisements for fast food make this difficult, in some cases impossible, to
achieve. Generalised across a range of consumer products, it is clear that
people are being drawn unhealthily towards their worst impulses.
In conclusion, the benefits of advertising for the business
world do not outweigh its psychological impact on the average citizen. A world
without advertising is not feasible but it is still possible to limit one’s
exposure.
increasingly invasive more and more personal
debates concerning controversy around
on the whole in general
average individual normal person
clearly beneficial definitely good for
hard to argue against difficult to disagree with
boon good for
variety of industries many types of
ushered in an age of rampant
commercial opportunity started an era of
more business
ranging from including
manufacturers makers
took advantage exploited
emerging medium new type
reach wider audiences find more people
appealing attractive
basic human psychology how people think
tap into exploit
nearly limitless market unlimited potential
eventually expanded globally after a while became international
supported by ruthlessly
efficient backed up by useful
profitable making money
nonetheless regardless
distract take attention from
entice pull in
inform give information about
of their own volition their own choice
attracts entices
healthier modes of living ways of being healthy
better served is better for
regularly usually
ubiquitous common
in some cases impossible sometimes can’t be
achieve accomplish
generalised applies to lots of
drawn unhealthily towards their
worst impulses enticed to do bad
things
business world industry
outweigh stronger than
psychological impact effect on one’s mind
not feasible impossible
limit extent
exposure open to
In
some countries, there are fewer young people who listen to or play classical
music these days.
Why is this?
Should young people be encouraged to play or perform classical
music?
It is becoming less and less common for students to both listen
to and play classical musical. In my opinion, this is the result of changing
tastes and it should be countered by concerned parents when possible.
The reason fewer young people today opt to listen to or take up
playing classical music is that there are other, more modern options. In the
past, classical music helped students gain entrance into elite universities and
was a potential career path. This is still true but to a lesser extent as the
diversification of musical styles and the growth of the music industry now
allows students to develop skills with music more suited to their particular
preferences. A young person today is more likely to want to learn the drums to
play in a rock group or practice rapping. This applies for listening habits as
well and is reflected in the dominance of pop music.
Regardless, it is still advisable for parents to instill a love
of classical music and encourage playing an instrument. First of all,
appreciating classical music requires greater mental engagement and patience
than other popular genres. In an era of shorter attention spans and immediate
gratification, a love of complex melodies can serve as a counter-balance.
Secondly, the benefits of playing an instrument are self-evident. Decades of
substantial research support the claims that it aids cognitive development
generally and one’s creativity more specifically. This is apart from the
discipline one must develop through years of intensive practice.
In conclusion, though it is natural younger people today opt for
more popular genres, there is great value in sustaining an interest in
classical music. It is therefore up to parents to gently encourage such a
pursuit.
less and less common not popular
classical music Beethoven, Mozart, etc.
changing tastes new inclinations
countered by fought by
concerned parents mothers and fathers who care
when possible if they can
opt choose
more modern options newer genres
in the past a long time ago
gain entrance into elite
universities get into top schools
potential career path could be a job
to a lesser extent not as important now
diversification more options
growth of the music
industry more money put into music
more suited to prefer
particular preferences what they like
applies for also true for
habits what you do over and over
reflected mirrored
dominance stronger than
regardless nonetheless
advisable a good idea
instill encourage
encourage suggest
first of all firstly
appreciating caring a lot about
requires greater mental
engagement must pay attention to
patience being able to wait
genres types of music
era of shorter attention spans people today can’t pay attention for as long
immediate gratification satisfaction right away
complex melodies complicated songs
serve as a counter-balance help fight against
secondly next
self-evident obvious
decades many years
substantial research support
the claims a lot of science backs
up
aids cognitive development
generally helps people
learn/think better
creativity imagination
specifically in particular
apart different from
discipline restraint
intensive practice working hard
great value lots of importance in
sustaining keeping alive
therefore thus
gently encourage suggest without too much force
pursuit area of study
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Computer games have become increasingly popular in an age of
mobile devices and advancing graphical interfaces. While some claim there is
educational value in these games, I would side with those decrying the
propagation of a passive lifestyle.
Supporters of gaming can point to its alleged benefits for
cognitive functioning. It is difficult to do good research in this area, but
many recent studies have found optimistic results not only related to hand-eye
coordination but also mental development. This is also supported by common
sense because as games have become more advanced, players must now follow
intricate storylines, figure out difficult puzzles and outsmart progressively
intelligent artificial intelligence. Depending on the age of the gamer and the
game in question it is very likely there are legitimate cognitive gains that
can be attributed to the extensive playing of games.
Nonetheless, the marginal advances listed above pale in
comparison to the effects of a passive lifestyle on both physical and mental
health. Mobile devices and the internet generally, but videogames in
particular, are the leading causes of the more sedentary lifestyles that most
children and teens now lead, often extending into adulthood. This leaves them
at risk of developing bad habits that could later translate into more serious
health conditions. Added to this is the mental aspect. Playing games is, next
to watching televisions shows, one of the least active forms of entertainment.
It would be more beneficial for people of all ages to play a team sport, read a
book, spend more time with family, or take up a productive and creative hobby.
In short, computer games may offer a limited range of
intellectual benefits but they also come at great physical and mental cost. It
is therefore up to parents and individuals themselves to opt for more
constructive pastimes.
increasingly popular more and more common
an age of mobile devices people using smartphones
advancing graphical interfaces newer machines and graphics
educational value importance of education
side with agree with
decrying criticising
propagation spreading
passive lifestyle not living an active life
supporters people in favour of
point to argue about
alleged benefits supposed advantages
cognitive functioning intellectual development
research studies
recent studies new research
optimistic results hopeful findings
hand-eye coordination reacting quickly
mental development brain functioning
supported in favour of
common sense logical
follow intricate storylines understand complex plots
figure out understand
outsmart be smarter than
progressively intelligent
artificial intelligence more
smart computers
depending on it concerns whether or not
gamer person who plays games
in question being discussed now
legitimate cognitive gains real intellectual advances
attributed to caused by
extensive long time, detailed
nonetheless regardless
marginal advances small gains
listed above detailed before
pale in comparison not important relative to
passive lifestyle not active living
physical and mental health related to the body and mind
mobile devices smartphones, tablets
generally in general
in particular especially
leading causes main reasons behind
sedentary lifestyles not active
lead live
extending into adulthood getting older
at risk worried
later translate after that become
serious health conditions important health problems
added to this is combined with
aspect part
next to behind
least active forms very passive
all ages kids, teens, grownups, elderly
take up start doing
productive useful
creative imaginative
may offer a limited range give some
come at great physical and
mental cost hurt a person in terms
of physical and mental health
therefore thus
opt for choose
constructive pastimes better hobbies
Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.
Some are of the belief that any prospective reforms to combat
climate change will necessarily be injurious to businesses. In my opinion,
despite the marginal market for eco-friendly companies, this is largely true.
Environmentalists often argue that green businesses can be
profitable. There are numerous examples from all over the world of corporations
excelling in fields such as eco-friendly foods, cars, energy and fashion. For
instance, Tesla has become one of the largest automobile manufacturers over the
last decade with a unique focus on stylish electronic cars. Their success is by
far the greatest so far in the emerging sector of green energy consumer
products and will doubtlessly inspire a generation of entrepreneurs to view
protecting the environment as a potential catalyst for growth rather than a
deterrent to profits.
However, the examples above are still dwarfed by most industries
and governmental regulation will surely hurt large and small businesses. In the
past, well-intentioned environmental policy has failed to take into account the
far-reaching impact of even the simplest stipulations. For example, when
nations band together to sign treaties such as the recent Paris Accords, nearly
all countries eventually fail to live up to the standards laid out because of
the economic downsides and how that could affect their popularity domestically.
As soon as one nation begins to fall short of their commitment, other countries
have no choice but to also prioritise corporations over the environment for
fear of losing power in later elections.
In conclusion, though there is some potential in green business
models, they will always have dire economic repercussions. This does not make
them less justified but it is an important consideration to temper expectations
of progress.
of the belief believe
prospective reforms possible changes
combat climate change fight global warming
necessarily must happen
injurious hurts
marginal market not big business
eco-friendly companies green corporations
largely mostly
environmentalists people who care about the environment
green businesses eco-friendly businesses
profitable make money
numerous examples many instances
all over the world globally
excelling doing really well
fields areas
eco-friendly foods foods that don’t hurt the environment
energy fuel
Tesla a company that makes electric cars
largest automobile
manufacturers biggest car companies
over the last decade in the last 10 years
unique focus special for
stylish electronic cars nice looking eco-friendly cars
by far the greatest so
far up to this point the most
emerging sector new business
green energy consumer products environmentally friendly items
doubtlessly inspire definitely motivate
generation people of the same age
entrepreneurs innovators
potential catalyst possible jump-start
deterrent warns away from
dwarfed by weaker than
governmental regulation government’s controlling
surely definitely
small businesses local businesses
well-intentioned environmental
policy trying to help the
environment
take into account consider
far-reaching impact huge effect
simplest stipulations littlest rules
band together work together
sign treaties agree to
recent Paris Accords new environmental policy agreement
eventually fail to live up in the end don’t carry out
standards laid out what they are supposed to follow
economic downsides economic disadvantages
domestically nationally
as soon as once
fall short not meet
commitment agreement
have no choice but to must
prioritise corporations over consider
the economy more important than
for fear of worried about
elections voting for your leaders
green business models eco-friendly businesses
dire economic repercussions bad effect on the economy
justified is reasonable
important consideration must be weighed
temper expectations of progress not expect too much
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There are many who feel that research into space exploration has
not made sufficient impact in the average individual’s life to justify its
expense. In my opinion, there are valid reasons to ask this question but
overall the cultural and scientific effect is all-encompassing.
Those who decry the wasted resources directed towards space
programs point out the lack of readily apparent benefits. Sending a man to the
moon and maintaining expensive telescopes and space stations do nothing for the
average person struggling to pay their bills and vulnerable to sudden economic
downturns. Most may casually watch the moon landing or the occasional NASA
video on YouTube but that is hardly justification for billions of dollars over
decades that could have made a real difference if diverted towards medicine,
education, infrastructure, and a vibrant employment sector.
Nonetheless, the effects pertain deeply to culture and science.
Firstly, putting a man on the moon was a moment that transcends mundane
utilitarian concerns. It not only was an exercise in the power and majesty of
the human race but also inspired countless individuals across a wide variety of
industries to push for great achievements and have pride in mankind. Secondly,
the advances made while researching space have led to concrete, beneficial
discoveries. For example, there are now satellites in space making possible
phone calls and internet access nearly everywhere on Earth. Countless other
large and small innovations from microchips to increased fuel efficiency are
also to some degree indebted to the national funding of space exploration.
In conclusion, far from being a waste of valuable resources,
space exploration has been the driving force behind the continued progress of
humanity. It should therefore continue to receive support.
space exploration going to other planets, space
sufficient impact enough of an effect
average individual’s life normal person’s day to day life
justify give reason for
expense money, time
valid reasons good justifications
overall in general
cultural related to culture, art, society
scientific effect impact on technology, science
all-encompassing touches all
decry are critical of
wasted resources not well used
directed towards given to
space programs funding for space research
point out argue
lack don’t have
readily apparent benefits obvious advantages
maintaining expensive
telescopes keeping up equipment
space stations places in space to do research
struggling to pay their bills having a tough time affording
vulnerable weak
sudden economic downturns the economy getting worse
casually without much care
moon landing getting to the moon
NASA American space agency
hardly justification not enough to give reason for
decades many years
real difference actual impact
diverted towards sent to
medicine health
education schools
infrastructure roads, buildings, etc.
a vibrant employment sector good jobs for everyone
nonetheless regardless
pertain deeply have a lot to do with
moment achievement
transcends mundane
utilitarian goes beyond what is
useful
exercise show
majesty power/beauty
human race mankind
inspired countless individuals encouraged many people
across a wide variety of
industries in many fields
push try
pride self-esteem
mankind humanity
advances progress
concrete real
beneficial discoveries advantageous innovations
satellites things in space that help our phones
making possible allowing for
nearly almost
countless unlimited
innovations new ideas
microchips small computer chips
increased fuel efficiency using fuel better
to some degree indebted at least a little because of
national funding countries giving money
space exploration going out into space
far from being definitely not
valuable resources important money, time, etc.
driving force behind main push behind
continued progress keep getting better
receive support get money
Many
people living in cities these days do not get enough physical exercise.
What are the causes of this?
What are some possible solutions?
It is becoming increasingly difficult for the average citizen
living in an urban area to set aside enough time for exercise. This is largely
because of the rise of sedentary lifestyles and the best solutions involve
moderate, individual changes.
The main causes of reduced physical activity by city residents
is more modern ways of living. This relates first of all to technology. In the
past, people were more likely to go out to meet with friends or take a trip to
the cinema and now it is more common to chat with friends online and watch TV
shows on Netflix at home. Combined with this is the widespread use of other
technologies that reduce activity such as washing machines, apps for ordering
food, and self-cleaning robots. All these factors together constitute a trend
towards more passive lifestyles dependent on the modern comforts of 21st
century technology.
Solutions for these problems ought to all involve individual
initiative. Most people today are at least dimly aware of the dangers of
addiction to and reliance on technology. Some possible remedies include
allocating time every day to doing exercise or joining a sports team or
socially reinforcing group activity such as yoga. There are also potential
counters related to new technologies. Many companies are meeting consumer
demand with wearable technologies, like the Fitbit or Apple Watch, that track
advanced biometric data ranging from heartbeat to quality of sleep. These
devices implicitly encourage a more active lifestyle.
In conclusion, technology is at the root of less exercise among
city residents and this can be fixed by individuals taking up the burden of
improving their own lives. These solutions are advisable since individual
responsibility is a habit with myriad benefits.
increasingly difficult more and more hard
average citizen normal person
urban area city
set aside keep safe
largely mostly
rise of sedentary lifestyles less active lives
involve related to
moderate minimal
individual changes not group reforms
reduced physical activity more passive
residents people who live there
modern ways of living new lifestyles
relates has to do with
more common more popular
combined with this altogether
widespread common
reduce activity make more passive
self-cleaning robots Roomba and other devices
factors together elements combined
constitute a trend add up to a pattern
passive not active
dependent reliant on
modern comforts conveniences
individual initiative people acting on their own
at least dimly aware at miniumum know to an extent
dangers risks
addiction to can’t stop using
reliance on dependent on
remedies fixes
allocating time giving time
socially reinforcing friends encouraging
potential counters possible solutions
meeting consumer demand giving customers what they want
wearable can be worn on the body
track advanced biometric
data follow health info
heartbeat how fast your heart beats
quality of sleep how good your sleep is
devices electronics
implicitly encourage imply
at the root of the source of
fixed solved
taking up the burden of take responsibility
advisable a good idea to
individual responsibility one’s duty
habit repeated action
myriad benefits many advantages
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many believe that the rule of law is the only reason society
does not
descend into anarchy. I am in agreement as idealistic, revisionist views of
human nature do not take into account the full pre-history of humanity.
Those who have a more hopeful view of mankind argue the modern
progression towards compassion and tolerance. Humans are not necessarily
violent and prone to criminal activity. The last hundred years has seen
tremendous advances in areas ranging from civil rights to voting to more
inclusive social policies. There is therefore a chance that even if society
removed or reduced laws governing behaviour, individuals would continue to
behave responsibly out of a renewed understanding of what it can mean to be
human. These claims are bolstered by the existence of certain small communities
in isolation where there is relatively little or no crime.
However, modern values are the product of a refinement of
humanity over centuries that still requires reinforcement. The laws against
violent crimes, for example, were enforced with brutal penalties for thousands
of years in countries around the world. Only in the last two hundred years,
have most nations reformed punishments to be either imprisonment or fines. The
harsher penalties of the distant past might be outdated, but the current ones
still deter potential criminals. The best evidence of this is that people today
still attempt to commit crimes despite advances in forensic science and nearly
ubiquitous surveillance cameras. It takes little imagination to see realise
many more would lean towards breaking the rules in the absence of punishments
altogether.
In conclusion, laws and regulations are crucial barriers to the
excesses of human nature and cannot be wished away with a good conscience. This
does not, however, imply they must be unnecessarily strict.
the rule of law laws, rules, and regulations
descend into anarchy havoc, no law
I am in agreement I agree
idealistic hopeful
revisionist views opinions
based on what happened already
human nature the way people are
take into account consider
full pre-history of
humanity past of humans before it was
recorded
hopeful view optimistic ideas
mankind humanity
progression advancements
compassion and tolerance caring
necessarily violent must
be cruel
prone likely to
tremendous advances lots of progress
ranging from including
civil rights political rights within a society
voting choosing your government officials
more inclusive social policies laws including more types of people
removed or reduced gotten rid of or cut down on
governing controlling
behave responsibly act well
renewed understanding new conception of
claims arguments
bolstered supported
existence appearance
certain small communities in
isolation small, untouched societies
relatively little comparably small
modern values contemporary views
product result
refinement getting better
reinforcement make stronger
enforced made to work
brutal penalties cruel repercussions
reformed changes
imprisonment put in prison
fines have to pay money
harsher penalties more
severe punishments
distant past a long time ago
outdated no longer relevant
deter potential criminals stop people from committing crimes
despite regardless of
forensic science crime scene science
nearly ubiquitous surveillance
cameras cameras all around
it takes little imagination to easy to imagine
lean towards breaking the rules inclined to not follow rules
absence lack of
altogether totally
crucial barriers important restrictions
excesses going too far
wished away made to disappear
good conscience not feeling bad about
imply means
unnecessarily strict too mean
Some
people think that the most important function of music is to help people relax.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many believe that music serves primarily as a means of
relaxation while others think it is more than that. I am in agreement with the
former as there are other purposes for music but they can all be roughly
defined as ways of relaxing.
Those who feel music is more than just relaxation point out its
other stated uses. For example, many people listen to music in more active
settings, such as in night clubs, and dance along. In difficult emotional
periods, including after a bad breakup or the loss of a loved one, some
individuals turn to music to cope or lift up their spirits. There are also
those who view music as an art form no different from literature, painting, and
poetry. For them, music serves the myriad purposes of artistic appreciation
that include offering insights into life and the artistic expression of others.
Nonetheless, the reasons detailed above can all be generally
categorised as forms of relaxation and the most common purpose of music is
unadorned enjoyment. People relax in different ways and that can include
dancing, connecting with music emotionally or enjoying art. The majority of
people, however, simply listen to music throughout the day as a way of escaping
from the pressures and demands of work and family. Studies have shown that
listening to music regularly can reduce blood pressure and ease the burdens
that modern life places on mental health. This is the reason why workers,
students, and parents gravitate towards music, in addition to other kinds of
light entertainment, at the end of a long day and explains the enduring success
of the industry.
In conclusion, music is mainly for relaxation, though this takes
on different variations depending on the person in question. This desire to
relax is part of a shared humanity that unites all peoples.
serves primarily as is mainly for
means of relaxation a way to chill out
I am in agreement with I agree with
former mentioned before
purposes methods
roughly defined generally grouped as
ways of relaxing means of chilling out
point out argue
other stated uses different purposes claimed
more active settings lively places
night clubs places to dance at night
difficult emotional periods tough times
bad breakup breaking up with a significant other
loss of a loved one someone dying
turn to music depend on music
cope deal with
lift up raise
spirits feelings, emotions
art form no
different from kind of art the same as
serves the myriad purposes works for multiple reasons
artistic appreciation enjoying art
offering insights into
life explains about life
artistic expression self-expression
nonetheless regardless
detailed above mentioned before
generally categorised roughly defined as
forms types
most common purpose why it is usually done
unadorned enjoyment simple pleasure
connecting understanding
emotionally with emotion, feeling
majority most of
throughout all during
a way of escaping getting away from
pressures stresses
demands pressures
studies have shown research supports
regularly on a regular basis
reduce blood pressure healthier heart
ease the burdens relieve stress
modern life the way people live now
places on mental health puts on one’s mind
gravitate move towards
in addition to also
light entertainment TV, movies, music, etc.
at the end of a long day after work
explains illustrates
enduring success continued popularity
mainly mostly
variations differences
depending on in certain situations
desire drive
shared humanity what all humans have in common
unites brings together
To what extent to you agree or disagree?
Many believe that children today play too many videogames and
should instead spend more time outdoors. In my opinion, though the former
diversion is more educational than in years past, the full scope of the latter
makes it preferable.
Advocates of gaming point out their recent evolution. This goes
beyond more realistic graphics and includes the topics and types of games now
available. Many games today are essentially a cinematic experience, with fully
realised characters and themes that rival other great works of art. In this
way, games are as educational as more respected art forms such as novels and
films. Moreover, not all games are passive. There are more and more games every
year that require creative and logical thinking, such as puzzles and text based
mysteries. The developers of the newest apps available for phones now take
advantage of improving hardware to push forward the medium and engage the mind.
Nonetheless, the games mentioned above are the exceptions and
the benefits of outdoor play are greater in general. The most obvious advantage
is the effect on heath. The world is facing an obesity epidemic that is at
least partly driven by more sedentary lifestyles centered around consumer
electronics and gaming. Going outside is a natural antidote and can instill in
children good habits that will promote a healthy life later. Additionally,
outdoor activities offer the opportunity for children to engage in a social
activity. Most games are, to varying degrees, an individual experience but
playing with others outside will foster teamwork and improved interpersonal
skills.
In conclusion, games can be worthwhile but they rarely have more
value than going outside. It is therefore important that parents strive to
limit children’s screen time.
instead rather than
though despite
former diversion one mentioned before distraction
educational help you learn
in years past in the past
full scope entire range
the latter one mentioned last
preferable better
advocates supporters
point out argue
evolution changes
goes beyond passes
realistic graphics better images
now available out now
essentially fundamentally
cinematic experience like a movie
fully realised characters realistic characters
themes what the game wants to say/express
rival compare well with
in this way like this
educational helps you learn
more respected art forms highly revered arts
moreover also
passive not active
more and more increasing
creative expressive
logical thinking rational thinking
puzzles problems to solve
text based mysteries games
based on writing
developers people who make games
take advantage exploit
improving hardware better phones, computers, etc.
push forward drive innovation
medium type of device
engage the mind must think about
nonetheless regardless
mentioned above written about before
exceptions outside the norm
greater in general larger overall
most obvious advantage clearest benefit
world is facing Earth is grappling with
obesity epidemic people getting fatter
at least partly driven by up to a point somewhat the source of
sedentary lifestyles not active
centered around have to do with
consumer electronics phones, computers, etc.
natural antidote clear remedy
instill teach
good habits good actions
promote a healthy life later be
healthy throughout life
additionally also
offer the opportunity for allow for
engage in have to do with
social activity talking with others
to varying degrees to different extents
individual experience done alone
foster teamwork encourage working together
improved interpersonal skills better communication with others
worthwhile useful
rarely not often
therefore thus
strive try for
limit keep contained
screen time using phones, tablets, computers, etc.
Whether
or not a person achieves their aims in life is mostly related to luck.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some are of the belief that luck is the determining factor when
accomplishing a given goal. In my opinion, luck is pivotal in individual
situations but its importance decreases over larger sample sizes.
The main argument for the primacy of luck is highly visible,
singular examples. This translates to extremely successful individuals. For
instance, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were exceptionally intelligent and
hard-working but they would never have become leading figures in history if
they had not grown up in California in the 1970s during the computer boom. It
is likely they would still be successful regardless of their era and place of
birth but the extent of influence would be more limited. This same principle
applies for the average individual as there are moments in one’s life that are
best credited to good luck or an advantageous situation.
However, the significance of luck decreases over time. Take, for
example, an average person. They may be born into a wealthy family and have a
good start in life; they are lucky from the onset. Nonetheless, if they are not
hard-working, there is a strong chance they will not be able to accomplish
their goals in life. The reverse is true of someone born into a bad situation.
There are exceptions, where the situation is dire or the period in history
precludes success, but most people who apply themselves over a long period of
time will ‘make their own luck’. This is because as sample sizes become larger,
the influence of variance naturally decreases. It still requires some
extraordinary luck to attain huge aims but more modest ones result from
repeated action rather than fortune.
In conclusion, luck is decisive in particular instances but not
more generally. It is therefore more important to place greater value on
working hard in the long-term than on the off-chance of being lucky.
of the belief believe
luck good fortune
determining factor decisive
accomplishing achieving
given goal any random aim
pivotal key
individual situations certain contexts
importance decreases over
larger sample sizes value is less
important over time and many examples
main argument primary reason
primacy central importance
highly visible well-known
singular unique
translates means
extremely successful
individuals people who have done
well
exceptionally intelligent really smart
leading figures in history major leaders, people
grown up as they get older
computer boom computers beginning to develop
regardless nonetheless
era time period
extent degree
influence shaping
limited small, not much
same principle applies this translates to
average individual normal person
moments times
best credited is due to
advantageous situation good spot
significance importance
average person normal person
wealthy rich
good start good beginning
onset beginning
nonetheless regardless of
strong chance good odds
accomplish achieve
reverse switch
exceptions situations that don’t fit
dire dangerous
precludes success cancels out the possibility of success
apply also works for
over a long period of time for a while
sample sizes number of examples
influence of variance how important luck is
naturally decreases declines of course
requires needs
extraordinary amazing
modest humble
result from comes from
repeated action doing something over and over
rather than fortune instead
of luck
decisive key
particular instances some examples
generally overall
place greater value put more importance on
off-chance sometimes
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many today claim that learning about literature should no longer
be a key component of the high school curriculum. In my opinion, there are
practical reasons for this sentiment but literature still serves a purpose.
Proponents of this reform argue other subjects deserve
prioritisation. There is little doubt that in the 21st century, the most
important subjects for students’ future careers relate to the sciences, such as
engineering and computer science, or the practical humanities, like business.
The earlier that students begin specialising, the more likely they are to have
a head start on the competition and secure a well-paying job immediately after
graduating high school or university. In contrast, the novels and poems that
students read in high school are usually completely forgotten within a few
years and do not teach any tangible skills that will help them advance in the
real world.
Nonetheless, literature contains many of the most important and
fundamental truths about the human condition. Life is about more than a career
and great authors tackle the most fundamental philosophical and psychological
questions. For example, the masters of 19th century Russian literature,
including Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, are primarily concerned with human psychology
and how this fits into a larger context of man’s search for meaning. Their
exploration of these issues is relevant to everyone and cannot be replaced with
a steady career. Moreover, the way in which great writers develop their themes,
the aesthetic quality of their writing itself, imparts to careful readers the
importance of artistic expression and may help them see outside the narrow
modern confines of accumulating the most material wealth.
In conclusion, the utilitarian benefits of studying practical
subjects do not outweigh the deeper values of literature. It is therefore
advisable that literature be emphasised in high school classrooms.
claim argue
no longer not anymore
key component crucial part
curriculum what you’re learning at school
practical reasons real justifications
sentiment feeling
serves a purpose has a reason
proponents supporters
reform change
deserve prioritisation warrants valuing highly
there is little doubt that it is clear that
21st century 2000 – 2100
relate to has to do with
sciences chemistry, math, biology, physics, etc.
engineering figuring out how things work
computer science learning about computers
practical humanities business and economics
business learning about money, economics
specialising focusing on one area
head start getting ahead
competition fighting
secure safe
well-paying making good money
immediately after right following that
in contrast however
completely forgotten not remembered
tangible skills concrete abilities
advance getting ahead
real world reality
fundamental truths important facts about life
human condition people living in the world
tackle deal with
fundamental philosophical basic relating to life and death
psychological questions issues about the human mind
masters the best at something
19th century Russian literature books from Russia in the 1900s
Tolstoy Leo Tolstoy, writer of War and Peace
Dostoevsky Fyodor Dostoevsky, writer of The Brothers Karamazov
primarily concerned mainly to do with
human psychology how people think
fits into relates to
larger context what it concerns
man’s search for meaning finding a purpose in life
exploration finding out about
relevant related to
replaced instead of
steady career good job
moreover also
the way in which how it is done
develop their themes explore their concerns
aesthetic quality beauty, art
imparts gives
careful readers conscientious
artistic expression self-expression
see outside the narrow modern
confines expand their worldview
accumulating the most material
wealth getting richer
utilitarian benefits get something real from it
outweigh more important than
deeper values very important
advisable should be done
emphasised focused on
Nowadays
people live longer after they retire.
How does this affect individuals and society?
What can be done about this?
As average life expectancy rises, people are living longer and
longer after retirement, which poses a number of problems for individuals and
society. In my opinion, these tensions can be remedied through government
action.
People retiring older can lead to conflict between individuals
and an increased burden on society generally. For the young, the process of
fully integrating older people into society can be challenging. For example,
many older people have quieter lifestyles and disputes may arise with younger
individuals who are in the habit of hosting loud parties or coming home late at
night, particularly in cases where young people are taking care of older
relatives. The strain on society can also be great as older people require more
medical support to treat conditions ranging from arthritis to cancer to heart
disease. This translates to a greater proportion of taxes going to the older
generation and can foster societal resentment and ageism.
The best fixes for these problems can be achieved by
governments. Firstly, governments can ease the integration of generations by
providing better retirements plans for individuals. For example, in the United
States, social security benefits are rarely enough to cover retirement and so
many must depend on their children. As for society, governments must be more
conscientious in planning for more substantial medical expenses. The government
should anticipate this trend only continuing in the future and set aside funds
to research and apply advanced treatments for retired citizens well into their
80s. These measures combined would alleviate some of the weight of supporting older
populations.
In conclusion, the pressures resulting from growth in the
average life span can be countered with forward-thinking governmental policy.
This will only become more important in the future as people live even longer.
average life expectancy how long most people live
longer and longer more time
retirement after stopping working
poses a number of problems causes a lot of issues
tensions strains
remedied fixed
government action governments helping
conflict problems
increased burden more pressure
generally overall
process the way
fully integrating becoming part of
challenging having trouble
quieter lifestyles calm life
disputes may arise conflicts come up
in the habit of used to
hosting loud parties having noisy parties
particularly in cases where especially when
taking care of older relatives looking after grandparents
strain pressure
require more medical support need more hospital care
treat conditions deal with medical problems
ranging from including
arthritis achy joints
translates to means
proportion ratio
foster societal
resentment increase animosity in society
ageism disliking older people
best fixes better remedies
achieved accomplished
ease make less of a problem
integration mix
generations people of different ages
providing better retirements
plans funding pensions
social security benefits retirement fund in the U.S.A.
rarely not often
cover pay for
depend on rely on
conscientious careful
more substantial larger
medical expenses money for medicine
anticipate look forward to
trend pattern
set aside funds save money for
advanced treatments new medicines
well into their 80s past 85 or so
measures combined efforts together
alleviate fix
weight pressure
supporting older populations helping old people
pressures resulting from strains coming from
life span how long you live
countered fixed
forward-thinking anticipating
governmental policy laws of the government
Why is this?
Is this a positive or negative development?
It is becoming increasingly common for schools around the world
to emphasise STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) to the detriment
of the humanities. This is a logically motivated decision and is negative
overall.
The main reason for this shift is a realisation of the value of
jobs in scientific fields. New inventions and medicines push forward human
progress and generate billions of dollars in revenue across a wide spectrum of
industries. It therefore follows there are high-paying jobs available in
private and public sectors for engineers, researchers, scientists, and
mathematicians. At the very least, someone who majors in a STEM related subject
will be able to find a quality teaching position. This guarantees of a minimum
level of success and the possibility of a much greater career motivates
parents, institutions and students themselves to prioritise and pursue
scientific careers.
This over-emphasis on science will translate to less art in the
world. It is true that from a strictly utilitarian point of view, resources
ought to be allocated to fields with the most economic value. Life is, however,
more than the sum of everyone’s earning potential. If the proportion of
humanities majors falls, there will be fewer painters, sculptors, filmmakers,
writers, and musicians. Science may create modern conveniences but the arts are
more important for a fulfilling and enjoyable life. The results of this decline
might not become apparent for generations, but if funding is slashed for arts
programs, the world will become culturally poorer and the art that has enriched
and elevated humanity will give way to a tranquil, technocratic future.
In conclusion, the jobs available to science majors explain
their dominance but taken as a whole this trend will result in a world bereft
of great artists. It is therefore important to balance funding to a defensible
degree.
increasingly common ubiquitous
emphasise focus on
to the detriment of hurting
humanities arts
logically motivated decision makes sense
main reason chief justification
shift change
realisation know
value importance
scientific fields engineering, chemistry, math, etc.
push forward drive
human progress advances in civilisation
generate make
revenue money
across a wide spectrum of
industries in many fields
follows naturally, logically
high-paying jobs available jobs with good salaries
private and public sectors companies and governments
at the very least at the minimum
majors fields to study
STEM related subject related to science, technology, engineering and math
quality teaching position good job as a teacher
guarantees makes sure of
minimum level lowest amount
possibility chance
much greater career better job
motivates encourages
institutions schools
prioritise focus on
pursue scientific careers get a job in science
over-emphasis focus too much on
translate to means
strictly utilitarian point of
view only caring about the end value of
allocated to given to
most economic value helps make the most money
sum total
earning potential how much money you can make
proportion ratio
modern conveniences phones, computers, TVs, etc.
fulfilling satisfying
decline decrease
apparent appears to be
generations many years
funding money, resources
slashed cut
culturally poorer weak in terms of the arts
enriched made stronger
elevated lifted up
give way sacrifice for
tranquil calm
technocratic future controlled by technology, efficiency
jobs available to jobs you can get
explain justify
dominance being in control
taken as a whole overall
trend pattern
result in consequence
bereft lacking
balance funding give equal resources
defensible degree justifiable extent
The
personal information of many individuals is held by large internet companies
and organisations.
Do you think the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?
There are growing concerns today about the storage of private
data by major internet companies like Facebook and Google. In my opinion, the
disadvantages of this trend outweigh its conveniences.
These companies themselves would argue their intentions are
primarily to provide better services. This relates first of all to advertising.
Facebook, for example, tracks user behaviour and then allows advertisers to
target audience segments in order to show them relevant advertising. An
individual might therefore see ads related to the kinds of restaurants and
music they enjoy most. Secondly, the information is used to create helpful services
for consumers. Google maps is a good example of an entirely free platform used
by millions that follows individuals, sells information to businesses, and
makes life more convenient without any obvious drawbacks or pernicious intent.
However, the misuse of big data has begun already and will only
become worse in the future. The advertisements targeted at individuals are not
always harmless. During the last presidential election in the United States,
foreign governments sought out vulnerable groups and fed them false information
to influence voting behaviour. Unethical companies use the advanced targeting
tools in the same way, often locating vulnerable individuals and encouraging
their worst impulses by indulging coping mechanisms ranging from fast food to
barely legal pharmaceuticals. This is only the beginning as this information
becomes more comprehensive there are legitimate concerns that authoritarian
regimes working in tandem with companies will be able to create all-knowing
police states and human rights abuses will become the norm.
In conclusion, the marginal benefits of access to personal
information by private companies do not outweigh both current and future
negatives. It is therefore important that governments regulate companies and
individuals attempt to take back a degree of control.
growing concerns increasing worries
storage keeping of
private data personal information
major main
trend pattern
conveniences makes life easier
intentions what you want to do
primarily mainly
provide better services give better products
relates first of all has to do with firstly
tracks user behaviour follows what people are doing
target audience segments pinpoint certain groups of people
relevant advertising ads related to what you like
secondly second of all
helpful good for them
entirely free platform costs nothing
without any obvious drawbacks no clear downsides
pernicious intent bad intentions
misuse not used the right way
harmless doesn’t hurt anyone
presidential election voting for a new president
foreign governments other countries
sought out looked for
vulnerable groups people who are at risk
fed them false information gave them lies
influence voting behaviour change how people vote
unethical immoral
advanced targeting tools sophisticated advertising mechanisms
locating vulnerable individuals finding people at risk
encouraging their worst
impulses making them do bad
things
indulging coping
mechanisms encourage bad behaviour that
makes you feel good about yourself
barely legal pharmaceuticals drugs
comprehensive all-encompassing
legitimate concerns real worries
authoritarian regimes totalitarian governments
in tandem with combined with
all-knowing police states authoritarian regimes
human rights abuses abusing people
norm standard
marginal benefits small advantages
access be able to get
negatives downsides
regulate restrict
attempt try
take back a degree of control try to manage
Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.
Many are of the belief that contacting possible alien life is a
desirable goal, while others are wary of the potential dangers. In my opinion,
though this satisfies basic human curiosity, the risk is too great relative to
the benefits.
The reason to try to communicate with extraterrestrials is to
learn more about the universe. Some might claim alien life could have
technology or insight to share, but the chances of this are too small to
justify the effort. Instead, the average person and the scientist alike simply
want to learn if there are other forms of life. Humans have dreamed of aliens
in novels and films for decades and some feel every attempt to realise these
dreams is warranted. If alien life is discovered, not only would it satisfy
this desire but it might also help humanity understand their own origins, place
in the universe, and answer fundamental existential questions.
However, curiosity alone is not enough to condone accepting even
the smallest chance of the danger inherent in alien contact. The likelihood of
an alien life form turning against humanity like a scene from a science fiction
film are infinitesimally small but the consequences are too great to ignore. In
the event that aliens were found and hostile to humanity it could pose a
serious problem and in the worst case scenario threaten the survival of the
human race. This far-fetched but disastrous downside logically dictates the
more sensible approach of continuing to develop human technology and wait until
the distant future to venture to locate alien life.
In conclusion, the self-interested pursuit of other life forms
has too much potential for species-threatening danger to be advisable. Instead,
governments should focus on maximising resources for more advanced technology.
are of the belief believe
contacting possible alien life talking to aliens
desirable goal worthy pursuit
wary worried about
potential dangers possible risks
satisfies fulfills
basic human curiosity fundamental desire to know
risk danger
relative to compared to
extraterrestrials aliens
claim think
insight important information
share give to use
justify the effort are the reason to do it
instead however
alike the same
decades 20+ years
attempt try
realise now know
warranted justified
discovered found
satisfy this desire fulfill the want
origins where something comes from
answer fundamental existential
questions learn about life, the
universe, god, etc.
curiosity alone interest on its own
condone sanction
smallest chance almost impossible
danger inherent risk included
likelihood possibility
turning against humanity fight with humans
scene from a science fiction
film from a movie
infinitesimally small very, very unlikely
consequences results
ignore not pay attention to
in the event that if it happens that
hostile mean
pose a serious problem make trouble
worst case scenario threaten most
extreme situation could
survival continued living
far-fetched very unlikely
disastrous downside negative
side
logically dictates follows reason that
more sensible approach more reasonable method
distant future far in the future
venture try
self-interested pursuit trying to satisfy one’s desires
species-threatening
danger could kill all humans
advisable good idea
instead however
maximising resources using money, time, people, etc. well
Do you think that the advantages of this outweigh the
disadvantages?
Some feel farming vegetables and taking care of animals should
be added to the primary school curriculum. In my opinion, though there are drawbacks
related to its feasibility, it would be a positive overall.
The disadvantages involve the struggles to implement this
practice. Firstly, inner city schools do not have easy access to farms. A
school in New York City already faced with rising student numbers and a lack of
resources cannot be expected to bus thousands of students to nearby farmland on
a regular basis. That would unequivocally be a poor allocation of limited
resources. Secondly, even schools located in the countryside would have trouble
enacting such an ambitious policy. They would need to connect with possibly
reluctant local farms, convince teachers, parents, and students of the
benefits, and divert funding towards a program with dubious 21st century value
as society becomes increasingly urban and less agrarian.
Nonetheless, the skills learned would be transferrable and
beneficial in themselves. Children learning to grow vegetables will be able to
do that their entire lives and much more inclined to later tend a private
garden. This can save money, encourage productivity, and improve health. Taking
care of animals will also help them if they choose to keep livestock or pets.
The greater benefit, however, will come from cultivation of personal qualities.
Children will gain a greater sense of responsibility and internalise the real
world effects of their negligence or dedication. Later in life regardless of
their occupation and where they live, they will have increased self-reliance
and a stronger recognition of how they can shape the world around them.
In conclusion, the personal benefits to raising animals and
growing vegetables outweigh any perceived drawbacks concerning resources. Where
possible, schools ought to enact these changes.
taking care of looking after
added combined
primary school curriculum what kids study in school
though despite
drawbacks disadvantages
feasibility possibility
positive overall good in general
involve deal with
struggles have to fight with
implement put into practice
practice change
inner city schools poor schools in cities
easy access to farms can get to farms conveniently
faced with combat
rising student numbers more and more students
a lack of resources not enough money, teachers, etc.
bus verb for to take the bus
nearby farmland farms not far away
on a regular basis day after day
unequivocally without question
poor allocation of limited
resources not distributing money,
etc. well
located found in
trouble enacting difficulty doing
ambitious policy big plan
connect with talk to
reluctant local farms not willing farmers
convince persuade
divert funding send money in a different direction
dubious 21st century value questionable importance nowadays
increasingly urban and less
agrarian more and more cities,
fewer farms
transferrable can be used in other ways
beneficial in themselves good on its own
entire lives whole life
much more inclined more likely to
later tend a private garden after that take care of a small, private garden
encourage productivity make more active
keep livestock raise animals
greater benefit larger advantage
cultivation growing
personal qualities characteristics
gain a greater sense of
responsibility become more responsible
internalise know deeply, understand
real world effects actul impact
negligence not paying attention to
dedication paying attention to
later in life as they get older
regardless of their
occupation no matter what job they do
increased self-reliance not need others
stronger recognition better ability to understand
shape have control over
personal benefits helps an individual
outweigh stronger than
perceived drawbacks concerning
resources ostensible
disadvantages related to money
where possible if it can be done
ought should
enact these changes make these reforms
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Many believe that high-ranking executive positions deserve their
exorbitant salaries, while others feel they earn disproportionately compared to
normal workers. In my opinion, outsized compensation is unreasonable in a
vacuum but makes sense given market dictates.
Detractors often argue the ratios defy justification. Recent
publications have quoted figures showing executive positions, and CEOs in
particular, makes hundreds of times what the average worker does. This includes
their various remuneration packages and bonuses. It is hard to claim this money
is deserved. Many CEOs work longer hours and graduated from top schools but
their tangible impact can be marginal relative to the key driving forces behind
product development and the many hard-working employees required for a business
to thrive. Even the most ardent supporters of these practices would not claim
their output is hundreds of times higher than a normal employee.
Nonetheless, this practice follows basic principles of supply
and demand. The simple fact is that there is a nearly endless supply of average
individuals to staff entry-level positions but capable executives are rarer.
These high-ranking jobs require an extraordinary commitment in terms of hours
that most are unwilling to invest and exceptional character qualities ranging
from leadership skills to raw intelligence. Since the top positions in a
company are hard to fill and the company has the finances to pay premium wages,
it is logical that executive salaries outrage many workers and their bonuses
that appear unjust. In fact, these payments have little relationship with
justice and more to do with the economic realities of capitalism.
In conclusion, though their salaries seem outlandish, executives
are more difficult to replace and deserve higher pay. This is an uncomfortable,
but crucial, truth for the average person to accept.
high-ranking executive
positions top jobs like CEO, CFO,
etc.
exorbitant salaries too high wages
earn disproportionately make too much
compared to relative to
outsized compensation making too much money
unreasonable in a vacuum not logical considered without context
makes sense logical
given considering
market dictates capitalism
detractors critics
ratios defy justification relative amounts can’t be defended
recent publications new studies, reports
quoted figures numbers mentioned
hundreds of times x100s
various remuneration packages different ways of receiving compensation
deserved just
tangible impact clear effect
marginal relative not much impact compared to
key driving forces main reason for
product development making better products
hard-working employees dedicated workers
thrive do really well
ardent supporters those in favour a lot
claim have the opinion
output what is produced
practice development
follows basic principles accords with what is normal
supply and demand relationship between what you have and what is wanted
simple fact basic truth
nearly endless supply almost infinite
entry-level positions starting-out jobs
capable executives good bosses
rarer less common
extraordinary commitment a lot put into
in terms of when it relates to
unwilling to invest will not put in
exceptional character qualities amazin characteristics
ranging from including
leadership skills being able to inspire confidence
raw intelligence mental ability
top positions big jobs
hard to fill difficult to find new employees
finances money
pay premium wages get a high salary
logical rational
outrage anger
appear unjust seem unfair
payments salary
little relationship with
justice nothing to do with what
is fair
economic realities of
capitalism truths inherent to the
free market system
seem outlandish appears disproportionate
uncomfortable unhappy
crucial very important
accept reconcile
Discuss both views and give your own opinions.
Many researchers claim that early childhood experiences are more
formative that the later, teenage years. In my opinion, though this may be
supported by studies, it makes more sense that adolescence shapes futures the
most.
Those who believe in the primacy of the pre-school years can
point out the effect of early experiences on neurodevelopment. It has become a
common refrain among psychologists that the majority of personality formation
is in the first 2 years of life. This stems from the relationship children have
with their parents, whether they are shown unconditional love and, conversely,
if there is any neglect or abuse present in the household. As the child
continues to mature and become aware of their surroundings, societal influences
intrude and include gender stereotypes, early friendships, and imitation of
one’s parents. By the time a child reaches kindergarten, most of their social
and personal identity is, allegedly, fixed.
Despite the valid arguments detailed above, I believe the
teenage years are when individuals truly begin to navigate the demands of
others against their own personal desires. The key life events that take place
in the teenage years include an increase in academic pressure, more nuanced
social relationships, increased responsibility at home, and, crucially, the
biological changes of puberty. These are the foundation of finding one’s place
in the world and managing wants against what is expected of an individual by
friends, family, school, and society at large. Some teenagers find a balance
early and excel while others struggle for long periods that may last into
adulthood. On the whole, these experiences outweigh those accumulated as a
young child.
In conclusion, though the childhood years are developmentally
important, nothing is a better predictor of the future than the issues that
must be resolved as teenagers. It is therefore important that teenagers are
given latitude to grow and express themselves.
claim argue
early childhood experiences when kids
more formative shape you more
supported by studies research indicates
makes more sense more logical
adolescence teenage years
shapes futures the most influences later life a lot
primacy of the pre-school years key importance of the years before starting school
point out argue about
neurodevelopment how the brain grows/changes
common refrain often said
majority most of
personality formation identity
stems from comes from
shown unconditional love like without any strings/conditions
conversely in contrast
neglect not pay attention to
abuse present in the household being hurt in your home
mature grow up
aware of their surroundings know about what is around them
societal influences intrude people around interfere
include gender stereotypes boy/girl social beliefs
early friendships friends as kids
imitation copy
by the time at the point
social and personal identity how you are in public and to yourself
allegedly supposedly
fixed unchanging
despite the valid arguments
detailed above regardless of the good
points made before
truly actually
navigate the demands get through the expectations
against their own personal
desires in contrast to what you
really want
key life events life events
take place happen
academic pressure stress from school
nuanced social relationships complex interrelations with others
increased responsibility at
home have to do more at home
crucially very importantly
biological changes of puberty how the body changes as a teenager
foundation of finding one’s
place in the world basis of knowing
where you want to be in life
managing wants against what is
expected of an individual balancing
desires against work, family, friends, etc.
society at large friends, work, family, etc.
find a balance early learn early on how to manage
excel get better
struggle fight with
long periods a lot of time
last into adulthood continue as you get older
on the whole generally
outweigh stronger than
accumulated add up
developmentally important important milestones in growing up
better predictor of the future paves the way for later life
resolved as teenagers fixed in adolescence
given latitude allowed freedom
express themselves act freely
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Research has shown that educational level is a key determiner of
potential criminal behaviour, leading many to suggest reorienting prisons to
focus on helping inmates earn degrees. In my opinion, this approach would be
ineffective relative to other measures.
Reformers point to the bulk of studies supporting this practice.
The last 50 years have witnessed a growth in prison programs funded by federal
governments and private activists aiding prisoners earning either a high school
or university degree. Tracking those who are released with a degree compared to
those without has shown a marked decrease in reoffenders among the former
group. The reasons for this are self-evidently related to the better jobs
available for individuals with diplomas. This tangible effect is heartening as
prisons should ideally serve to rehabilitate convicts for civilian life and not
simply punish them for past transgressions while limiting their future career
options to more criminal activity.
However, the efficacy of prison education is limited compared to
improved education for underprivileged segments of society. The research on
education while incarcerated is dwarfed by studies on the primacy of education
before the onset of criminal activity. A good example of this would be the
persistently high crime rates among inner city youth who do not have access to
good public schools. Those who fail to graduate from high school have
drastically higher rates of later criminality ranging from burglary to robbery
to violent crimes. If a student is supported in their studies, they have no
need to turn to crime later in life to make ends meet. Once a convicted felon,
even for the rare individuals who earn a degree, it is difficult to find good
work later.
In conclusion, the unequivocal benefits of prison education
reform do not justify its priority over more impactful educational measures.
There should be a degree of balance but the most efficient solution should
invariably receive the most resources.
educational level how much you have studied, your degrees
key determiner crucial element
potential criminal behaviour possible criminal actions
leading making
suggest advise
reorienting prisons changing the direction of incarceration
inmates people in prison
degrees certificates
ineffective relative to not as useful compared to
measures actions
reformers people who want to make changes
bulk of studies majority of research
practice institution, way of doing things
witnessed has seen
prison programs jail reforms
funded by given money by
federal governments the national government
private activists not the government, individuals
aiding helping
tracking following
released let out
marked decrease clear fall
reoffenders among the former
group people who commit crimes again in
the first mentioned group
self-evidently obviously
diplomas certificates
tangible effect clear impact
heartening gives you hope
ideally serve to in a perfect world works to
rehabilitate convicts fix prisoners
civilian life living among normal society
punish hurt
past transgressions mistakes in the past
limiting their future career
options not many job
opportunities
criminal activity bad behaviour
efficacy how well it works
limited contained
improved education better schools
underprivileged segments of
society poorer groups of people
incarcerated in prison/jail
dwarfed made lesser
primacy importance
onset beginning
persistently high crime
rates always committing a lot of
crimes
inner city youth kids living in the city
access to good public schools can go to good government schools
fail to graduate do not get out of high school
drastically higher rates clearly more of them
later criminality ranging
from … to … to after
that commit crimes including
later in life when they’re older
make ends meet make enough money
convicted felon incarcerated individual
rare not common
unequivocal benefits clear advantages
priority more important
impactful educational measures effectual policies related to education
a degree of balance some equality
efficient solution cost-effective remedy
invariably always
resources money, time, etc.
In
the past, knowledge was contained in books. Nowadays, knowledge is uploaded to
the internet.
Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?
It is a fact of modern life that most information today is
stored online, rather than in physical books as it was in the past. In my
opinion, this is a negative overall despite its obvious conveniences.
Supporters of this trend can point to the numerous ways
knowledge kept online can be disseminated and used. Online information is
almost universally accessible, narrowing socioeconomic differences in society
and allowing for various conveniences. First of all, users can find relevant
information on search engines from a wide range of sources including
user-generated sites like Wikipedia to news outlets like The New York Times and
academic journals as well. Once an individual locates the information they are
looking for, it is also easier to search within that article, share it with
others, have it wherever they go and store more than would be possible if it
were a hard copy.
Nonetheless, storing information online encourages a dependence
on computer technology that is harmful for the human mind. In the past, if a
person wanted to research a given topic, they would have to check out a library
book or talk with an expert. This process was much slower and open to the
possibility of bias. However, it also meant that individuals were more
conscientious and patiently learned from fuller, more nuanced sources.
Nowadays, most people read short articles, hastily written to attract more
clicks and generate advertising revenue. These tap into a fundamental human
need to be constantly engaged and feeling pleasure. Over time, this has led to
a generation addicted to devices, lacking the healthy habits engendered by
careful research and study.
In conclusion, despite the handiness of online information, the
impact on the human psyche makes this a negative trend on level. Individuals
must themselves find ways to counter these potentially injurious effects.
a fact of modern life true about the world now
stored online kept on the internet
physical books real books
negative overall bad in general
obvious conveniences clearly helpful
supporters of this trend those in favour of it
point to argue about
numerous ways many methods
disseminated spread around
almost universally accessible nearly used by everyone
narrowing socioeconomic
differences less difference between
classes
allowing for opening up the possibility of
first of all firstly
relevant information what you are looking for
search engines Google, etc.
wide range of sources many places to find information
user-generated sites websites where people visiting create the content
news outlets the media
academic journals formal papers, magazines
locates finds
search within find inside of
share give to others
more than would be possible couldn’t happen with
hard copy real edition
nonetheless regardless
encourages makes people want to
dependence can’t stop using
harmful injurious
a given topic whatever they are looking up
check out take out
expert person who knows a lot
process steps
possibility of bias maybe prejudiced
conscientious careful
patiently slowly and carefully
fuller, more nuanced sources more complete articles, books
hastily written quickly written
attract more clicks get more people to go to it
generate advertising revenue make money
tap into exploit
fundamental human basic human
constantly engaged always occupied
feeling pleasure happy
over time in the long-term
led to caused
generation group of people around the same age
addicted to devices can’t stop using phones
lacking not having
healthy habits good habits
engendered by created by
despite regardless of
handiness convenience
human psyche human mind, psychology
on level overall
counter fight against
potentially injurious effects possibly harmful results
The
internet means people do not need to travel to foreign countries to understand
how others live.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The growth of information available on the internet in recent
decades has prompted some to question the value of international travel. In my
opinion, travelling to other countries is a rewarding experience, but I am
largely in agreement with this position.
Those who still advocate travelling abroad highlight how
important the experience can be. This argument centres around both its value in
itself as well as its utility. Most travellers can justify the time and money
by the enjoyable experience and discovery of another country, including their
people and traditions. These experiences are also formative. For example,
someone who grows up in a wealthy European nation might not have seen how
people live in developing or more ethnically diverse countries. They will
therefore have a fuller understanding of the rest of the world if they travel a
lot and this could impact both their political views and their actions later in
life.
Nonetheless, travel is no longer as important as it used to be
because it is now possible to learn about countries online. The experience is
still valuable but online information is actually likely to be more accurate
and comprehensive. An individual who wants to research life in Vietnam, for
instance, can scroll through lifestyle blogs, read the local online versions of
magazines, watch videos of both foreigners and residents from all over the
country, follow individuals from a wide segment of society on Instagram, and
generally get a good sense for the country without ever setting foot there. In
the past, limited access to technology in those developing countries might have
made it impossible to understand how locals live, but that is no longer a
problem.
In conclusion, the information that can be found on the internet
has greatly diminished the importance of the experience of travelling to other
countries. Each individual must nonetheless decide for themselves whether it is
still a worthwhile expense.
in recent decades the last 20 or 30 years
prompted make them think
question the value doubt the importance
rewarding experience worthwhile
largely in agreement mostly agree
position opinion
advocate support
highlight point to
centres around has to do with
value in itself not for an outside reason
utility usefulness
justify a reason for doing it
discovery finding out
traditions cultural ways of doing things
formative shape you
wealthy European nation rich countries in Europe
developing poor
ethnically diverse countries nations
with many different ethnicities/races
fuller understanding better understanding
rest of the world everywhere else on Earth
political views opinions about social and political issues
later in life as they get longer
no longer as important as it
used to be less important now
accurate correct
comprehensive full
scroll through lifestyle blogs read articles about living
local online versions of
magazines online news and
articles
foreigners people from another country
residents people who live there
wide segment of society lots of people in a country
generally overall
good sense good idea
without ever setting foot there never having been there
limited access not able to get it
locals live how people from there live day to day
no longer a problem not an issue now
greatly diminished a lot less important
decide for themselves make the choice on their own
worthwhile expense worth spending money on
What are the advantages and disadvantages of working for large
businesses?
The rise of large corporations has led to a fundamental shift in
the workforce towards large businesses. The chief advantages of this relate to
opportunity and the downsides are larger, societal dilemmas.
Proponents of big business can point to career advancement and
the variety of roles within a large company. Small businesses, by their nature,
draw on a limited possible source of revenue that naturally caps promotions.
Large companies have nearly unlimited profit potential and can thus employ a
large number of managers, executives and other high-salaried positions.
Moreover, a small business is more likely to be limited in the number of roles,
while larger companies will have departments ranging from legal to marketing to
research and development to human resources, all of which are potential
destinations for motivated employees.
The disadvantages of these large companies relate less directly
to individuals and more to society at large. Firstly, although there are more
quality jobs available in big companies, the disappearance of small, local
entrepreneurs means that capital becomes concentrated in the company’s chief
shareholders, who are often living in other countries and already extremely
rich. Over time this has led to the division of wealth that defines the 21st
century. Secondly, as executive decisions become further removed from local
communities it is harder to regulate large companies. A good example of this
would be the environmental cost of drilling for oil and extracting natural gas,
which hurts local residents but continues unabated because those in authority
are unaffected.
In conclusion, the opportunities provided by big business do not
outweigh the negative potential for all of society when power becomes
concentrated and distant. It is therefore important to check the reach of
corporations and empower individuals.
rise of large
corporations more big companies
fundamental shift basic change
workforce employed people
chief advantages main benefits
relate to have to do with
downsides disadvantages
societal dilemmas problems affecting all people
proponents supporters
big business large companies
point to career
advancement argue about promotions and opportunities
variety of roles many different jobs
by their nature naturally, of course
draw on take from
limited possible source of
revenue only so much money they
can make
naturally caps of course limited to
nearly unlimited profit
potential no limits on the money
that can be made
employ give jobs to
executives CEOs, CFOs, etc.
high-salaried positions well-paying jobs
departments ranging from … to parts
of the company including
legal lawyers
research and development coming up with new ideas
human resources managing employees, HR
all of which are everything is
destinations places to go
motivated employees workers who really want to
relate less directly don’t have much to do with
society at large all people
disappearance going away
local entrepreneurs small businesses
capital money and resources
concentrated focused
chief shareholders those who own the country
division of wealth how money is spread out
defines the 21st century represents 2000 to 2100
executive decisions choices from the higher ups
further removed more and more distant
local communities small businesses
regulate control
environmental cost negative impact on the environment
drilling for oil getting oil out of the ground
extracting natural gas taking gas from the Earth
hurts local residents does not benefit locals
continues unabated keeps going on without slowing down
authority power
unaffected no effect
outweigh stronger than
distant far away
check the reach control the influence
empower individuals give power to people
Is this a positive or negative development?
Heavy investment in sports facilities aimed at professional
athletes is common in countries that want to compete in international events.
This is a positive development for national pride but negative on the whole as
it takes funding away from the average citizen.
Proponents of this practice would argue that it brings the
nation together. The best examples of this relate to international competitions
like the summer and winter Olympics. China and the United States have famously
invested millions in building sports facilities for prospective Olympians and
the results in terms of medals justify the expenditure. The wider implications
for national unity come from an entire country watching the telecasts and
rooting together. Divisive domestic disputes are temporarily forgotten as
everyone focuses on the progress of their country. Much of this would be
impossible without specialised sports facilities for the best competitors.
However, these facilities benefit a select few over the
majority. Funding for such facilities is a limited part of a federal budget
that must cover essential areas like health, education, and the military. Any
money diverted towards preparing world-class athletes for international
competitions is to some extent a waste as it cuts into the budget for
facilities for average people. For example, many inner city youths in poorer
neighborhoods lack access to parks and such facilities and this has been
identified as one of the factors that allows for poverty to be inherited over
generations. Direct the funding away from these expensive gyms for top athletes
and it would be possible to build many more facilities that serve a much wider
and underserved segment of the population.
In conclusion, despite the less tangible benefits to national
cohesiveness, this a negative on level as it favours a talented minority. More
resources should be allocated towards facilities for those in greater need.
heavy investment a lot of money put into
aimed at for
compete in international events the Olympics, World Cup, etc.
national pride caring about your country
negative on the whole bad on level
takes funding away from diverts money from
average citizen normal person
proponents advocates
practice development
brings the nation together unifies the country
international competitions Olympics, World Cup, etc.
summer and winter Olympics held every 4 years either in the summer or winter
famously invested millions well-known put lots of money into
prospective Olympians potential Olympic athletes
justify the expenditure good reason for the money
wider implications larger effects
national unity bringing a country together
entire country whole nation
telecasts TV broadcasts
rooting wanting to win
divisive domestic
disputes dividing arguments in a
country
temporarily not permanent
focuses on directed towards
progress moving forward
much of this a lot of
specialised sports facilities just for doing sports
best competitors strongest athletes
a select few some of
majority most of
limited part small piece of
federal budget money the government has to spend
cover essential areas have money for important parts
diverted towards sent in the direction of
world-class athletes best sports people
to some extent to a degree
waste not used well
cuts into takes away from
inner city youths kids living in the city
lack access can’t go to
identified pinpointed
one of the factors one element
poverty to be inherited over
generations families staying poor
over time
direct send towards
wider broader
underserved don’t get enough
less tangible benefits not as concrete advantages
national cohesiveness brings a country together
on level overall
favours benefits
talented minority just some people with a lot of ability
resources money, time, etc.
allocated sent to
greater need more important for
Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
Using plastic containers for various food products has become
ubiquitous in recent decades. Though this has potential drawbacks for the
environment, I believe it does not outweigh the benefits to businesses and
individuals.
The environmental cost of disposable plastic containers is
massive. Before plastics, foods and drinks were typically put into
biodegradable, eco-friendly paper or cardboard. The arrival of plastics has
impacted the environment on two major fronts. Firstly, plastic itself is a
fossil fuel byproduct that requires crude oil for its production and later
transportation. The emissions from fossil fuels are often cited as the chief
contributor to the hastening of climate change. Moreover, the containers
themselves either find their ways to landfills, polluting previously pristine
land, or end up in the ocean, forming ‘land masses’ that are injurious to
marine life.
Nonetheless, the concomitant problems of plastic containers
listed above do not override their usefulness. For companies, using plastic
containers is cheap and allows for uniform consistency. This is the reason why
they have been adopted by companies ranging from fast food giants like
McDonald’s to local grocery chains. This savings is then passed on to the
consumer who enjoys cheaper prices and the many conveniences of plastic
containers. They are less likely to rip open and spill compared with paper and
most families make use of them afterwards for leftover food. If plastic
containers for food items were banned not only would people lose these
conveniences but many companies would have to radically alter their packaging,
and potentially, products themselves.
In conclusion, the environmental impact of plastic containers
does little to undermine their value for both corporations and the average
customer. It is instead important to explore innovations to make plastics more
environmentally friendly.
plastic containers bags, bottles, boxes, etc.
ubiquitous common
recent decades last 30 or so years
potential drawbacks possible disadvantages
outweigh stronger than
environmental cost hurts the environment
disposable plastic containers single-use plastics
massive huge
put into added to
biodegradable break down over time in nature
eco-friendly paper paper that is biodegradable
cardboard stronger paper
arrival onset
on two major fronts in two main areas
fossil fuel byproduct comes from fossil fuels
requires crude oil needs oil in its raw form
production making of it
emissions gases produced
often cited as commonly regarded as
chief contributor main cause
hastening of climate change speeding up of global warming
moreover also
landfills trash put in the ground
polluting previously pristine
land contaminating nature
end up finally
forming ‘land masses’ making big collections
injurious harmful
marine life sea animals
nonetheless regardless
concomitant problems related issues
listed above mentioned before
override be stronger than
usefulness convenience
uniform consistency all the same
adopted by used by
fast food giants fast food restaurants
local grocery chains supermarkets
savings not wasting money
passed on to the consumer customers also save money
enjoys receives
less likely to rip open won’t tear
spill fall out of
make use of them afterwards use them again
banned not allowed
lose these conveniences not have the benefits
radically alter .change a lot
undermine their value hurt their importance
average customer a consumer
explore innovations find new ways
environmentally friendly good for nature
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many environmentalists feel that people today have a
responsibility to ensure the Earth is left in good condition for future
generations. In my opinion, though this duty is unfair, it is nonetheless a
burden that must be taken up.
Those who argue against this sentiment can justly assign blame
elsewhere. The main contributors to climate change and the current cataclysmic
warnings were the large industrial powers on the 20th century. Automobiles and
air travel became common in the last 100 years and are two leading drivers of
the fossil fuel consumption many scientists link to global warming. Surging
populations and advances in medicine have also contributed greatly to the
over-production and mass consumption that defines the 21st century. It is
objectively unfair that people today, and primarily the younger generation only
now entering the workforce, should have to suffer for the thoughtlessness of
wanton industrialisation.
Regardless, it is the responsibility of the present generation
to take heed of these potentially dire warnings. People in the past were either
intentionally or unintentionally unaware of the repercussions of their actions
but individuals today cannot make such excuses. For example, the rapidly
deteriorating polar ice caps are directly impacting the natural habitats of
animals around the world and some climate scientists believe that an uptick in
natural disasters is also related to this and other man-made changes to the
ecosystem. Past generations who set the world on this path cannot come back and
remedy their mistakes and future generations will resent the current one if
steps are not taken towards drastic reforms.
In conclusion, though people today bear little responsibility
for climate change, they must commit to reversing its effects. Leaving this
problem for the children of the future will put them in a potentially
unwinnable situation.
environmentalists people who care about the environment
responsibility duty
ensure make sure
left in good condition remain in good quality
future generations people who come later
duty responsibility
unfair unjust
nonetheless regardless
burden duty
taken up take responsibility for
argue against object to
sentiment feeling
justly assign blame elsewhere correctly find fault with others
main contributors biggest causes
climate change global warming
current cataclysmic warnings dire predictions about the future
large industrial powers big companies, nations
20th century 1900 – 2000
two leading drivers main forces behind
fossil fuel consumption burning oil
link connections
surging populations increasing number of people
advances in medicine new medical procedures and technology
contributed greatly add a lot to
over-production making too much
mass consumption using too much
defines constitutes
objectively unfair definitely not right
primarily mainly
entering the workforce getting jobs
suffer hurt from
thoughtlessness not thinking about
wanton industrialisation thoughtless expansion of industry
regardless nonetheless
present generation people alive today
take heed consider
potentially dire warnings possible really bad predictions
intentionally meaning to do it
unintentionally unaware not knowing what they were doing
repercussions effects
excuses reasons
rapidly deteriorating polar ice
caps icebergs melting quickly
directly impacting having a clear effect on
natural habitats where animals live
uptick increase
natural disasters hurricans, earthquakes, fires, etc.
man-made cause by humans
ecosystem habit
set the world on this path main cause
remedy their mistakes fix
what they did
resent be angry about
current one right now
steps are not taken no measures enacted
drastic reforms sweeping changes
bear little responsibility not their duty
commit be serious about
reversing its effects fixing
leaving this problem ignoring the issue
children of the future future generations
potentially unwinnable
situation possibly no solution to
it
In
many workplaces, online communication is now more common than face-to-face
meetings.
Do the advantages of this trend outweigh the disadvantages?
Offices around the world these days are opting to hold meetings
online to save both time and money. In my opinion, despite the potential loss
of a strong rapport between co-workers, this is a positive considered as a
whole.
Critics of these changes often point to its effect on
interpersonal relationships in an office. The meeting itself is largely
secondary as most information can be communicated just as easily through an
online teleconference or an email. True value lies, instead, in the moments
before, during and after meetings when colleagues have a chance to socialise or
exchange ideas about what they have been working on. This is the reason some
companies, famously Apple and Pixar, designed their offices to maximise
opportunities for employees to chat with individuals from different
departments. The strengthening of social bonds and the sharing of novel
perspectives can both boost morale and help drive innovation.
Nonetheless, meeting online is more convenient for employees and
saves money for companies. When employees must come in for their work already,
many of the benefits listed above are already present and meetings mainly serve
as a distraction. Remote workers will also appreciate not having to commute for
a short meeting, especially if they have family or other working commitments.
Moreover, companies benefit from the time that employees save because it allows
them to better allocate their labour towards actual work, thereby increasing
efficiency. There are also a range of costs that can be reduced once online
communications become standard such as leasing less office space and savings related
to office expenses and employee perks.
In conclusion, though communicating online can be detrimental to
personal relationships in an office, they offer thoughtful conveniences to
employees and help cut costs. Companies ought to shift as much training to
online as possible.
these days nowadays
opting choosing
hold meetings online have meetings over the internet
despite regardless of
potential loss possible disappearance
strong rapport good relationship
co-workers colleagues
considered as a whole on level
critics detractors
point to argue about
interpersonal relationships relations between people
largely secondary less important
just as easily equally simply
teleconference talk alone
true value lies actual importance comes from
instead actually
colleagues have a chance co-workers get the opportunity
socialise talk in a friendly way
exchange ideas share views
famously well-known
designed made for
maximise opportunities increase the chances
chat with talk to
different departments other parts of the company
strengthening making stronger
social bonds interpersonal relationships
sharing of novel
perspectives exchanging new views
boost morale increase happiness
drive innovation make more creative
nonetheless regardless
convenient useful and easy
benefits listed above advantages I wrote about before
already present exist now
mainly serve mostly are
distraction draws away your focus
remote workers people who work from home
appreciate be grateful for
commute travel in to work
commitments obligations
better allocate divert towards more useful areas
towards going in that direction
thereby increasing efficiency as a result increasing productivity
range of costs many different expenses
standard common
leasing less office space renting fewer offices
office expenses costs in the office
employee perks privileges for workers
detrimental to can hurt
thoughtful considerate
help cut costs reduce money spent
shift change to
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The rise of fast food globally is often thought to have an
injurious impact on families, individuals, and society at large. In my opinion,
fast food is a negative overall despite some tangible benefits.
The advantages of fast food vary according to the segment of
society in question. Individuals get enjoyment out of fast food, the clearest
evidence of which is its popularity. Fast food is also relatively cheap and, as
its name suggests, saves time. For families, the advantages are similar. In
many working-class families, parents spend at a lot time and energy at their
jobs and do not have the luxury of preparing a nutritious, time-consuming meal
for their children. Fast food is therefore a necessary, viable alternative.
Finally, society benefits in a general sense because of the employment
opportunities. Fast food restaurants employ thousands of, admittedly, lowly
paid workers and is a safe transitional job for students and struggling
individuals.
Regardless, the negative impact of fast food is greater. Though
people enjoy the taste and convenience of fast food, they are doing irreparable
harm to both their short and long-term health. Research has shown that the high
fat and sugar content in fast food not only affects daily energy levels but
also contributes to conditions such as heart disease and diabetes. These same
health risks extend to families, with the added caveat that children are
forming potentially life-long bad habits. Society also suffers from the growth
of the fast food industry as local businesses lose revenue to these
international conglomerates that enrich primarily the already wealthy or
foreign nationals.
In conclusion, despite the benefits related to convenience and
economics that fast food brings, the health drawbacks should serve as strong
deterrents for countries looking to encourage these industries.
rise increase
globally around the world
injurious impact negative effect
society at large all people
negative overall bad in general
tangible benefits concrete advantages
vary different
segment part
in question being discussed
clearest evidence of which best instance includes
relatively somewhat
as its name suggests can be figured out from the name
saves time doesn’t waste time
working-class families normal, working families
luxury privilege
preparing making
nutritious good for your health
time-consuming takes a lot of time
necessary needed
viable alternative good second option
in a general sense overall
employment opportunities job chances
admittedly it must be said
lowly paid workers don’t make a lot of money
safe transitional job not risky in-between work
struggling individuals people who need help
regardless nonetheless
irreparable harm can’t be fixed injury
short and long-term health in the near and far future
content what’s inside it
affects daily energy levels impacts how much energy you have
contributes to adds to
conditions such as diseases including
diabetes disease from eating too much sugar
health risks extend to health problems include
added caveat extra warning
forming potentially life-long
bad habits possibly last forever
habits
suffers hurt from
growth of the fast food
industry more powerful fast food
companies
local businesses lose
revenue neighborhood shops lose money
international
conglomerates big companies
enrich primarily mostly get money from
foreign nationals people from other countries
related to similar to
should serve as ought to be
deterrents dissuades people
encourage these industries support those companies
Some
educators believe that every child should be taught how to play a musical
instrument.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many teachers feel that learning to play a musical instrument is
an indispensable part of a student’s education. In my opinion, there are
socioeconomic concerns with this tenet but it is still advisable overall.
Detractors can easily argue not every child has access to the
supportive environment required to learn an instrument. Firstly, a family might
not have enough money if a child wants to learn piano or buy a quality guitar.
There are also related expenses that include the fees for private lessons and
other equipment. Added to this, they will need their parents to have enough
time to drive them to and from rehearsals and recitals. At home, the entire
family will have to listen to them practice and this could be contentious if
there are a lot of people living in one home or a child shares their room with siblings
or relatives. All these factors affect underprivileged children and place them
at a decided disadvantage.
Nonetheless, the above issues can be mitigated with more funding
for schools and the developmental benefits of music outweigh all other concerns.
Research has shown that in early development, physical changes take place in
the brains of both children and adolescents. Some of these relate to music and
children who take up an instrument, even if they quit later, have demonstrated
improved cognitive flexibility and creativity in longitudinal studies across a
variety of cultural backgrounds. Apart from the scientific grounding, it also
common sense that children will feel more fulfilled and derive a lot of joy
from playing music. This can provide a boost to not only academics but also
their long-term mental well-being.
In conclusion, though policymakers will have to account for
accessibility issues, learning an instrument is key for neurodevelopment.
Schools, parents, and teachers should work together to ensure the best chances
of success.
indispensable crucial
socioeconomic concerns questions about class
tenet principle
advisable overall in general good
detractors critics
easily argue point out effortlessly
access to can get to
supportive environment
required good family support
firstly first of all
quality guitar good guitar
related expenses other money that must be spent
fees cost
private lessons one on one lessons
other equipment other musical items
added to this moreover
rehearsals practicing
recitals a mini-concert
entire family whole family
contentious controversial
shares their room with live in the same room
factors elements
underprivileged children poor kids
place them at a decided
disadvantage definitely worse off
nonetheless regardless
mitigated somewhat countered by
funding money for
developmental benefits positive impact on how they grow up
outweigh all other concerns more important
in early development as kids
take place happen
adolescents teenagers
relate to have to do with
take up start
quit stop
demonstrated improved cognitive
flexibility smarter
longitudinal studies research over many years
cultural backgrounds where someone comes from
apart from besides
scientific grounding research basis
feel more fulfilled feel satisfied
derive get from
provide a boost increase
not only … but
also also includes
long-term mental well-being mental health
policymakers politicians
account for accessibility
issues think about providing
it for all
key important
neurodevelopment brain development
work together collaborate
ensure make sure
best chances of success will likely work out
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some feel governments should invest more in public art in cities
to boost the quality of life. Personally, I am in disagreement with this idea
because it has little actual importance for the average citizen.
On the one hand, public art beautifies a city. A city stripped
of all art gives off the dreary appearance of being purely for utilitarian
value and the daily rigour of work. In contrast, cities that have invested
heavily in public art, such as New York City, offer their residents a beautiful
and inspiring home. A child who sees sculptures and murals working home will
feel the city is a nicer place to live and workers passing by works of art will
have some emotional relief from the demands of the day. This not only builds up
the character of urban areas for local inhabitants and instills a sense of
pride, but also attracts tourists and professional artists to the city, both of
which contribute to a vibrant city.
Nonetheless, public art has little quantifiable positive value.
Most city-dwellers are too engrossed in their hectic schedules to notice public
art. This art, therefore, means nothing to most locals, while also diverting an
outsized share of a city’s budget. There are other more vital areas requiring
development such as high-end infrastructure, well-rounded healthcare systems,
and modern recreational facilities. Moreover, the public space used to house
these works of art cannot be used for practical purposes including critical
public facilities like restrooms, bus stops or parks. Those who rely on these
other facilities will have more trouble finding them and their quality of life
may be somewhat impacted by a preference for art.
Despite the aesthetic value of public art, government bodies
should focus more on urban issues that truly matter to their constituents.
There must be a degree of balance but it should always tip more towards
pragmatic concerns.
invest put money into
boost increase
quality of life standard of living
I am in disagreement with don’t agree with
little actual importance not much real impact
average citizen normal person
beautifies makes beautiful
stripped of doesn’t have
dreary appearance boring look
purely for utilitarian value only for its use
daily rigour of work daily grind of a job
invested heavily giving a lot of money to
offer their residents give to citizens
inspiring elevating
murals large paintings
passing by walking past
emotional relief makes you feel better
demands of the day rigor of work, life
builds up the character creates a sense of identity
urban areas cities
local inhabitants people who live there
instills imparts
attracts makes come there
contribute to a vibrant city makes the city better
nonetheless regardless
little quantifiable positive value not much actual import
city-dwellers city residents
engrossed lost in
hectic schedules busy days
notice pay attention to
means nothing to has no value to
diverting sending in a different direction
outsized share of a city’s
budget take up too much money
vital areas important parts
high-end infrastructure roads, plumbing, electricity, etc.
well-rounded healthcare systems hospitals
modern recreational facilities gyms
moreover furthermore
house verb of house
practical purposes concrete reasons
critical public facilities key places for all residents
rely on need
somewhat impacted kind of affected
preference for art prioritising art
aesthetic value value of how it looks
government bodies governments
urban issues problems related to cities
truly matter actually important
constituents people
degree of balance some equality
tip more towards lean towards, value more
pragmatic concerns real-world issues
Historical
objects should be brought back to their country of origin.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many today are calling for historical objects currently residing
in, largely Western, museums to be returned to their nation of origin. In my
opinion, though these items were typically acquired fairly, repatriating them
would go a long way to easing international resentment against past colonial
powers.
The argument of the institutions currently displaying these
items is that they have a legal right. Some objects were unlawfully stolen, but
the majority of those have already been sent back. The artifacts now in
exhibitions have proofs of sale. The prices appear to modern observers as
scandalously low but they were agreed upon in another era and there is no legal
basis to revoke these sales. The British Museum in England, for example, has produced
unequivocal evidence that all the items they preserve were fairly bargained for
and obtained. In any other situation, demanding a product that has been sold be
returned would not even be broached and items of historical and cultural
importance should be no different.
Regardless of the just case museums can make, there is a
practical argument for returning these objects that does not exist for keeping
them. A good example of this is in many African countries where their historic
artifacts were pillaged during colonialism. The powers that, in effect, stole
their history tended to be predominately white, European nations like The
United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, and Spain. Since
many of these wealthy countries now charge expensive fees to view artefacts
from poorer African countries, a natural resentment festers. By returning the
property, some of the pain of colonialism could abate. Countries subjected to
colonial rule will be able to move past feelings of hostility if there is an
attempt made to rectify and sanction the offenders.
In conclusion, though many of these cultural relics were bought
legally, there is critical value in giving them back as they can repair
historically fraught relations. Every country must balance these an abstract
respect for justice against these more utilitarian concerns.
calling for requesting
historical objects relics from a country
residing in staying in, housed
largely Western mostly from European countries
returned to given back
nation of origin where they come from
typically acquired fairly usually bought legally
repatriating giving back to the original country
go a long way contributes a lot towards
easing international resentment reducing tension between countries
past colonial powers countries that used to own other countries
institutions governments, companies, etc.
displaying showing
legal right entitled to
unlawfully stolen taken illegally
majority most of
already been sent back repatriated already
artifacts documents, relics, paintings, sculptures, etc. from the past
exhibitions displays of items
proofs of sale documents showing something was bought
appear seem
modern observers modern people, people today
scandalously low shockingly little
agreed upon contracted
another era a different time
no legal basis unlawful
revoke these sales overturn the contract
British Museum a museum in England with many historic items
unequivocal evidence clear proof
preserve keep safe
fairly bargained for agreed upon fairly
obtained received
in any other situation in comparable conditions
demanding asking for
broached asked
cultural importance key for a country’s culture
no different the same
regardless of nonetheless
just case fair situation
practical argument pragmatic view
historic artifacts relics from the past
pillaged stolen
colonialism a period when European countries controlled countries
around the world
powers important countries
in effect essentially
stole their history took their relics, artifacts
predominately white mostly white
wealthy countries rich nations
charge expensive fees ask for a lot of money
natural resentment festers normal
animosity grows
property what someone owns
pain of colonialism resentment from the past
abate disappear
subjected to colonial rule under the rule of European countries
move past get over
hostility resentment towards
attempt made tried to
rectify fix
sanction punish
offenders those who did something wrong
cultural relics historic artifacts
legally within the bounds of the law
critical value very important
repair historically fraught
relations fix problems between
countries
balance not over-value
abstract respect undefined reverence for
utilitarian concerns practical worries
These
days more fathers stay at home and take care of their children while mothers go
out to work.
What could be the reasons for this? Is it a positive or negative
development?
It is becoming increasingly common for fathers to be primary
caretakers while wives develop their careers. I believe this is because of a
societal shift in gender relations and it is a positive development.
The most obvious cause of more women in the workplace is modern
gender relations. As recently as the 1950s in the United States, it was the
unquestioned role of women to cook, clean, and look after the children. Many
progressive women began to feel that they were more than their biological
prerogative and feminism movements sprouted up in the 1960s. There have been
years of struggle and the wage gap is still a hotly debated issue but now most reasonable
adults accept that both men and women should have equal opportunity to pursue a
career.
On the whole, I believe this is a positive development because
women can contribute greatly to society. Since women have come into the
workforce en masse there
are countless examples of high performing professionals including CEOs like
Shery Sandberg, athletes like Serena Williams, and authors like Margaret
Atwood. That belies the impact of millions of women performing well in the
average job. A company meeting a few decades ago might have been more one-sided
in its male dominated viewpoints, but now it is likely to showcase more female
viewpoints. This added perspective is one key to creative thinking and greatly
enhances decision-making and the resultant products and services of many
companies.
In conclusion, the advent of women in the workforce has brought
great benefits to the world. The pertinent question is now how quickly will all
parts of the world adopt these progressive improvements.
increasingly common more and more popular
primary caretakers main persona responsible for looking after the kids
societal shift change in how society thinks
gender relations how men/women interact
most obvious cause clearest source
modern gender relations recent developments in males and females in society
as recently as starting as soon as
unquestioned role undoubted place
look after take care of
progressive women forward thinking women
biological prerogative what our bodies are meant to do naturally
feminism movements the rights of women
sprouted up started to appear
struggle conflict with
wage gap differences in pay
hotly debated issue fiercely argued topic
most reasonable adults
accept the majority of normal people
recognise
equal opportunity the same access, ability
pursue a career have a job
contribute greatly add a lot
come into the workforce start working
en masse in total
countless examples many instances
high performing professionals top level workers
belies undermines
performing well doing a good job
average job normal work
a few decades ago 20 – 30 years ago
one-sided not showing both perspectives
male dominated viewpoints the opinions of men
showcase display
female viewpoints women’s opinions
added perspective different viewpoint
one key one important part
greatly enhances
decision-making makes a big difference
in making decisions
resultant products products produced as a result
advent of women start of women
brought great benefits to the
world added a lot of positives for
everyone
pertinent question pressing concern
adopt enact
progressive improvements modern changes
Discuss both views and give your opinions.
It is often argued that curtailing the over-packaging of
products is the onus of supermarkets and manufacturers rather than consumers.
From my point of view, I am largely in agreement with the latter viewpoint.
On the one hand, supermarkets and manufacturers are responsible
for using less packaging because they are the ones who have instituted
unnecessary packaging on a large scale. There is no discernible reason, in
light of its dire environmental impact, that toothpaste manufacturers have
historically chosen to pack tubes in extra boxes or supermarkets have opted to
wrap bananas and apples in Styrofoam trays, covered with plastic. These
redundant practices contribute greatly to both the initial production of
plastic and its subsequent disposal in landfills. Since supermarkets and
manufacturers are the ones with the power to reform their own policies, it is
only logical that they should be responsible.
On the other hand, only consumers can force the hands of large
corporations by boycotting their products. This is best evidenced in cities
where it used to be common to package fruits and vegetables in plastic, such as
Chiang Mai in Thailand. Consumer awareness movements among locals have had a
discernible impact on companies. It is now much more common to find bananas
bare or simply wrapped in natural leaves and vegetables tied together with a
single piece of string to lessen their environmental footprint. This same
practice employed in cities around the world will have the largest possible
impact on the environment.
In conclusion, the only pragmatic way to persuade
shareholder-controlled corporations to reform packaging policies is by putting
consumer pressure on their bottom lines. If customers make more of an effort to
steer clear of heavily packaged products in favour of more environmentally
conscious ones, this will lead to a shift in thinking when it comes to the
environmental toll of plastics.
often argued frequently debated
curtailing lessening
over-packaging wrapping up too much
onus responsibility
manufacturers companies producing products
rather than instead of
from my point of view in my opinion
largely in agreement mostly agree
latter viewpoint opinion I mentioned second
instituted unnecessary
packaging on a large scale put in
place lots of wrapping up of products
discernible reason clear cause
in light of because of
dire environmental impact series effect on the environment
toothpaste manufacturers companies that make toothpaste
historically chosen in that past opted to
pack tubes package toothpaste tubes
opted chose
Styrofoam a packaging material
covered with wrapped in
redundant practices repetitive uses
initial first
subsequent disposal later throwing away
landfills putting trash in the ground
power to reform ability to change
policies guidelines
force the hands make them
boycotting not buying the products
best evidenced clearly supported
common happens a lot
consumer awareness movements people caring more about an issue
locals people from that area
discernible impact clear effect
bare not packaged
tied together wrapped together
lessen their environmental
footprint make more
environmentally friendly
employed used
largest possible impact biggest effect achievable
pragmatic way realistic route
persuade shareholder–controlled convince
big companies
reform packaging policies change the way they package
consumer pressure customers buying/not buying
bottom lines profits
customers consumers
steer clear avoid
environmentally conscious ones those who care about the environment
lead to a shift in thinking will change how people view
environmental toll of plastics effect of packaging on the environment
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Many believe that the influence of multinational companies on
sports through sponsorship deals has a harmful effect. In my opinion, while
advertising creates potential conflicts of interest, this a positive situation
overall as it funds the sports industry.
The growing primacy of sponsorships in sports can be problematic
when it precipitates an ethical dilemma. In recent years, many Middle Eastern
corporate entities linked closely to governments with poor human rights records
such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar have purchased and are now endorsed by major
footballing leagues and teams. This raises the question of whether such leagues
should accept morally bankrupt ownership. A similar example was seen in the NBA
recently, which has signed various lucrative sponsorships with Chinese
companies and was put in a difficult position when a league executive expressed
support for the independence movement in Hong Kong. The league was forced to
backtrack amid pressure of boycotts from China.
Nonetheless, advertising is a key part of the viewing experience
fans have come to expect. The advertisements themselves are slightly annoying
at best, but they allow leagues to make games widely available to watch and
guarantees the salaries of the best players. Most games, whether it be
football, basketball, tennis or another sport, can be viewed for free on major
television networks or online. Advertising allows the distributors and owners
to earn enough for this to be a viable option. Moreover, leagues do not operate
in a vacuum. If one league banned all advertising, then players would simply
switch to play somewhere else where salaries are higher. Advertising is
therefore an unavoidable, crucial prerequisite to having the top players.
In conclusion, the fan benefits outweigh the pernicious impact
of sponsorship deals in sport. It is regardless important for leagues to
balance competing ethical, economic, and entertainment priorities.
influence effect
multinational companies international corporations
sponsorship deals paying to use representatives from a sport or to have your
logo associated with the team
harmful effect negative impact
creates potential conflicts of
interest causes possible thorny
ethical problems
positive situation overall good in general
funds the sports industry supports sports
growing primacy more and more important
problematic causes problems
precipitates starts/causes
ethical dilemma moral choice
corporate entities companies
linked closely connected deeply
poor human rights records don’t have rights for their citizens
endorsed by supported by
morally bankrupt ownership owners without ethics
signed various lucrative
sponsorships contracted to work
together
difficult position tough spot
league executive high up official
expressed support said he was in favour of
independence movement fighting for freedom
backtrack amid pressure take back what was said because of threats
boycotts not buying
nonetheless regardless
key part important piece
viewing experience watching the sport
come to expect now feel entitled to
slightly annoying at best a little irritating in the best case scenario
allow leagues let sporting federations
make games widely
available everyone can watch them
guarantees the salaries makes it sure they can pay a lot
major television networks big TV stations
distributors those who broadcast the games
owners those who own the teams
viable option possible choice
do not operate in a vacuum are always in a context
banned not allowed
switch change to
therefore thus
unavoidable can’t be stopped
crucial prerequisite key requirement
outweigh stronger than
pernicious impact negative effect
balance competing keep in perspective conflicting
ethical moral
economic related to money
priorities interests
In
some places, young people find it difficult to communicate with older people.
Why is this?
What are the solutions?
In many countries, there is a communication rift between the
older and younger generations. This is a natural phenomenon and the solution is
for both sides to compromise.
The old and young often cannot communicate well because of major
differences in perspective. It is natural that older people will have a more
mature outlook and younger people be more radical in their views. A good
example of this would be in Vietnam where the older generation holds very
conservative, traditional views related to familial structures, careers, and
social values that conflict with the more modern, progressive positions of the
younger generation. Young people have heard the traditional arguments for years
and want to rebel, often out of naivety. Older people have the benefit of
experience and and feel young people should follow their advice. This basic
antagonism underlies poor communication between the generations.
The best solutions all rely on compromise. Young people ought to
accept that their lack of life experience puts them at a disadvantage in
understanding the world. Many of their opinions are premature and will evolve
over time. This implies that they should make greater efforts to understand the
counsel of their elders. Their elders, in turn, must realise that their
experiences are a small sample size from a unique time period. If, for example,
they had to struggle to earn a living and raise a family, they must concede
this only a single instance that cannot be simplistically generalised.
Moreover, times have changed and what was sound advice in the past, may be
largely irrelevant today.
In conclusion, the old and young are in different life stages
and naturally have contrasting mindsets and the best solutions require a
self-reflective modesty from both demographics. In this way, they will be able
to learn more from each other.
communication rift breakdowns in talking to each other
natural phenomenon happens normally
compromise meet in the middle
major differences in
perspective contrasting viewpoints
mature outlook more reasonable viewpoints
radical extreme
views opinions
holds very conservative have traditional opinions
traditional views conservative opinions
familial structures family types
conflict with disagree with
modern new
progressive positions modern views
rebel fight against
naivety inexperienced
benefit of experience can lean on past experiences
follow their advice listen to
basic antagonism
underlies conflict at the base of
accept concede
lack of life experience puts
them at a disadvantage not having many experiences makes
their positions weaker
premature young, not ready
evolve change and get better
implies means
make greater efforts try more
realise understand
small sample size didn’t happen many times
unique time period that time in history
struggle to earn a living have a tough time making money
concede accept
simplistically generalised reductively applied to everyone
sound advice good advice
largely irrelevant today mostly doesn’t apply today
different life stages different times in your life
contrasting mindsets differing outlooks
self-reflective modesty able to be self-critical
demographics age groups
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The availability of new technologies to the average citizen in
the form of consumer electronics brings with it both advantages and
disadvantages. In my opinion, though these devices are convenient, their use is
a negative overall given the impact on mental health.
Proponents of phones and tablets can point to the all but
limitless functionality they provide. It is possible, just by owning a small,
affordable device that fits in your pocket, to instantly capture video, take
photos, send emails, check social media, make phone calls, watch movies, listen
to music, play games and use a wide variety of productivity applications. There
is no arguing with the near miraculous achievements found in smartphones and
tablets. Used properly, these save time and widen the possible outlets for
self-expression and creativity. An amateur film-maker, for example, can shoot
and edit digital video directly on their phone, add in sound effects and post
it easily to a website like YouTube.
Nonetheless, the potential of phones is hindered by their
corrosive effect. It is almost impossible to use a phone as a tool to enhance
creativity and productivity because it is also home to applications designed to
prey on the weaknesses of the human psyche. Companies like Facebook tap into a
natural human desire for affirmation and trigger addictive dopamine bursts as
rewards for posting selfies. Those not addicted to social media, may find
themselves wasting hours playing videogames, receiving roughly the same
chemical incentive. Over time, users become dependent on unhealthy habits that
humans have not had time to evolve counters for and the ostensible convenience
of these handheld devices becomes an excuse, rather than a reason, to own one.
In conclusion, phones and tablets open up new possibilities but
their abuse has led to a generation of dependent users. It is up to
individuals, not organisation and governments, to limit their screen time to
preserve their mental well-being.
availability can be used now
new technologies more advanced tech
average citizen normal person
in the form of manifested in
consumer electronics phones, tablets, etc.
brings with it also includes
convenient easy to use, helpful
negative overall given not
good on the whole because
mental health psychological state
proponents supporters
point to argue
all but almost
limitless functionality unlimited uses
affordable cheap
fits in your pocket can be put in your pocket, can be carried
instantly capture video right away shoots videos
wide variety of productivity
applications many types of programs
for saving time
there is no arguing with it is indisputable
near miraculous achievements almost impossible successes
found in on
used properly not abused
save time more efficient
widen the possible outlets increase the avenues for
self-expression expressing yourself
creativity art
amateur film-maker not professional movie maker
edit digital video directly work
on videos right after shooting on their phones
add in sound effects put in sounds
post it share it online
hindered by slowed by
corrosive effect impact that hurts
enhance creativity make one more creative
home to has
designed to prey on made to take advantage of
weaknesses drawbacks
human psyche psychology
tap into exploit
natural human desire part of human nature
affirmation reassurance
trigger addictive dopamine
bursts make you feel happy
posting selfies putting up pictures you took of yourself
addicted can’t stop using
wasting hours not using time well
receiving roughly getting abotu the same
chemical incentive bursts of happiness
dependent rely on
unhealthy habits not good for you
evolve counters for find ways to defend oneself from
ostensible convenience seemingly good for you
handheld devices phones, tablets
excuse a reason for doing something
rather than a reason instead of a real cause
open up new possibilities allows for new opportunities
abuse not use properly
generation group of people born around now
up to responsible for
limit restrict
screen time time spent on computers, phones
preserve maintain
mental well-being mental health
To what extent do you think crime is determined by genetics?
Is it possible to stop children from growing up to be criminals?
There are many psychologists today who believe that crime comes
from inborn, genetic characteristics. In my opinion, genetics play a small role
in criminal behaviour and it is much more sensible to combat crime by looking
to family circumstances.
Those who believe strongly in the role of genetics in
determining future behaviour can point to case examples and hard data. It is
very common for the children of violent criminals to display some degree of
abnormal behaviour as children and later in life. Scientists can ground their
theories of crime by mapping the genetic code of an individual and then
identifying similarities between the family members of criminals. However,
their results may uncover some genetic factors but it is much more likely that
a child raised by a criminal will simply have a poor upbringing and social
factors will explain their anti-social behaviour. This is supported by recent
research into developmental psychology showing the physical changes that occur
in brain formation as a result of upbringing.
Therefore, it is largely possible to prevent most crime by
taking an active, positive role in childcare. A good counter-example of this
comes from the case studies of serials killers. Without exception, all serial
killers came from abusive, broken homes. The physical and sexual abuse present
in their childhood, later manifested itself in their compulsions to exert power
over others. Naturally, this does not mean that abuse necessarily leads to
crime, as many others overcome their difficult backgrounds to become
well-adjusted adults. It does, however, imply a large proportion of criminal
behaviour can be prevented by a supportive family environment. Knowing that
they are loved and accepted by their parents, will make children less likely to
seek attention through bad behaviour or abuse drugs to cope with their
problems, both of which are early indicators of possible criminality.
In conclusion, though nature may be a marginal factor in
criminal psychology, I believe that emphasis on the social environment is the
real key to fighting crime. It is therefore important to invest in social
services, education, and child welfare programs.
inborn gentic, passed down
genetic characteristics qualities from your ancestors
play a small role not much of an impact
sensible makes sense
combat crime fight crime
looking to family circumstances considering upbringing
determining future
behaviour causing how they behave later
point to argue
case examples real world instances
hard data numbers, research
violent criminals people who hurt others
display show
abnormal behaviour deviant actions
later in life as they get older
ground their theories find evidence for what they think
mapping the genetic code DNA mapping
identifying similarities finding what is the same
uncover some genetic factors find DNA evidence
poor upbringing raised in a bad family
social factors what comes from parents, society
explain show the reason for
anti-social behaviour not acting within the bounds of society
supported by recent research evidence from studies
developmental psychology the study of how minds develop
physical changes differences in the body
brain formation how the brain develops
upbringing being raised
largely mostly
prevent most crime stop a lot of crime
active not passive
positive role big part in
childcare taking care of kids
good counter-example instance that shows the opposite
comes from result from
case studies examples
serials killers people who kill multiple people
without exception all follow this rule
abusive being hurt
broken homes unhappy families
physical related to the body
sexual abuse being hurt/used in a sexual way
later manifested afterwards takes the form of
compulsions uncontrollable desires
exert power over others hurt other people
Naturally obviously
necessarily leads to will always cause
overcome be better than
difficult backgrounds tough upbringing
well-adjusted adults normal people
imply suggest
large proportion a lot of
prevented stopped
supportive family environment good family
accepted not rejected
less likely probably not going to happen
seek attention want people to engage with them
abuse drugs to cope with their
problems take drugs to feel
better
early indicators signals
possible criminality potential criminal behaviour
nature genetics
marginal factor not that important
emphasis focus on
social environment family and society
real key crucial part
fighting crime combatting crime
invest give money to
social services welfare programs to help people in need
child welfare programs services to help kids
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Many today feel that is important for the entire extended family
to play a role in child-rearing, while others feel that parents are sufficient.
In my opinion, the whole family should be part of the process.
Those who doubt the value of the whole family in raising
children often point out the potentially negative influence of particular
relatives. In an ideal world, each family member would impart their own unique,
mature perspectives in the interests of raising a well-rounded child. In
practice, many relatives are more likely to serve as bad examples or contradict
the efforts of the parents. The best case scenario with such individuals is
confusion and in more extreme cases it could lead to developmental problems.
There is even the possibility that a close relative is engaging in physical or
mental abuse of a child without the parent’s awareness.
Nonetheless, the instances above are exceptions that can be
dealt with on a case-by-case basis; in most families extra help lessens the
burden on parents. A good example of this would be in countries with very
tight-knit families such as in Asia and South America. There it is very common
for aunts, uncles and the extended family to lend a hand with raising children.
The main benefits of this are for parents and children. Parents get a much
needed break from looking after their kids. Children benefit from the undivided
attention of their relatives. When they come back home, their mother and father
are also more likely to feel recharged and fully engaged in parenting duties
having had some time to themselves.
In conclusion, though there are rare situations where the whole
family raising a child can be a negative, it is important for parents to
receive support from relatives. Parents should strive to have this familial
environment in order to raise well-adjusted adults.
entire extended family uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.
play a role help with
child-rearing raising a child
sufficient enough
whole family entire family
part of the process play a role in
doubt question
value believe to be important
point out argue
potentially negative influence possibly hurt
particular relatives certain family members
in an ideal world in a perfect world
impart give/influence
unique individual
mature perspectives adult views
the interests of for others
well-rounded child kid with diverse interests
in practice in reality
serve as bad examples not good examples
contradict go against
efforts attempts
best case scenario the dream situation
confusion misunderstanding
more extreme cases worst case scenarios
developmental problems mental issues
possibility chance
close relative family member that knows them well
engaging in physical or mental
abuse hurting, neglecting, abusing
without the parent’s awareness the mother/father not knowing
nonetheless regardless
exceptions cases outside the norm
dealt with handled
case-by-case basis situation to situation
lessens the burden on parents helps parents get by
tight-knit families close families
lend a hand help out
much needed break required rest
looking after taking care of
benefit for the good of
undivided attention not distracted
recharged re-energised
engaged paying attention
parenting duties responsibilities
time to themselves personal time
rare situations some cases
receive support get help
strive try hard
familial environment family situation
well-adjusted adults normal people
The
government should lower the budget on the arts in order to allocate more money
to education.
To what extent do you agree?
Due to the limits of national budgets, many today are fiercely
debating the proper level of funding for the arts and education. While some
argue that the arts have important historic value, I side with those who
recognize the societal value of education.
On the one hand, many insist that the arts are an important
reminder of national history. A good example of this would be the countless
paintings of historic events and key figures that became prominent and
fashionable during the Renaissance. These pictures now deepen not only our
understanding of those events but also the psychology and values of the
individuals producing and becoming patrons of art at that time. It is therefore
likely that art made today will also give important clues to future generations
as to the history and character of their ancestors.
On the other hand, education is the key for the progress of a nation.
This can be most clearly seen in developing countries. After World War II, for
instance, South Korea’s economy was decimated and there were few pathways to a
stable nation. The government invested massively in education and the result is
some of the most important companies in the world were founded ranging from
Samsung to LG to Hyundai. These companies contribute to the economy and have
greatly raised the standard of living for all citizens. I believe efforts to
fund education like the one detailed above have a clear and tangible impact.
In conclusion, art is important for its value in terms of
history but education is by far more important for its economic effects.
Governments should strike some balance but prioritise education.
limits of national budgets constraints of money available
fiercely debating hotly arguing about
proper level of funding correct amount of money
important historic value key to understanding the past
side with agree with
recognize understand
societal value of education importance of schools
insist feel strongly about
reminder makes one remember
national history history of a country
countless paintings of historic
events many pictures of events from
the past
key figures important people
prominent common
fashionable in vogue
Renaissance period of artistic and scientific growth in Europe around
the 1500s
deepen understand more
psychology how people think
becoming patrons of contributing money for
clues hints
future generations people in the future, our grandchildren, etc.
character personality
ancestors people who came before us
progress how the world gets better
most clearly seen obvious in
decimated destroyed
pathways means
stable nation prosperous country
invested massively put a lot of money into
ranging from including
contribute give to
raised the standard of living
for all citizens make life better for
all
efforts attempts
detailed above listed before
clear and tangible impact real effect
strike some balance find a middle way
prioritise make more important
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
There are many today who believe that it is more important to
prioritise education for younger people over looking after the elderly. In my
opinion, this makes utilitarian sense but ignores more important
justifications.
Those who argue in favour of education can easily draw on the
tangible benefits. Some nations have gone so far as to suggest that education
is the most important national priority and deserves the greatest allocation of
resources. This was famously the case in countries like Japan, South Korea, and
Finland decades ago and its efficacy has been evidenced by the growth of
innovative industries and progressively rising standards of living. The
conclusions from those countries is simple: money spent on education not only
contributes to producing jobs in the short-term and stimulating the consumer
economy, but the results years later of a well-educated populace will benefit
political participation, the economy, safety, and a host of other areas.
Nonetheless, investment on education has peaked and care for the
elderly is a sadly neglected area. No one would suggest drastically slashing
education budgets, but some resources ought to be diverted to the people who
contributed most to present living stangards. Past generations often had to
work longer hours at more difficult jobs to build the modern infrastructure and
political and economic systems now taken for granted. As these people age, many
of them struggle with paying the bills if they do not have a supportive,
financially stable family. They might not be able to work anymore so it
therefore falls to the government to find ways of taking care of them ranging
from retirement homes to monthly checks for living expenses to being aware of
how policy changes might affect older people.
In conclusion, education is crucial but it is more important to
keep in mind the debt owed to the elderly and take good care of them.
Governments must of course balance a multitude of priorities but old people
should not slip down the list.
prioritise focus on
looking after taking care of
utilitarian sense just caring about what it pragmatic
ignores not pay attention to
justifications reasons for
argue in favour of support
easily draw on can point out
tangible benefits real advantages
gone so far as to taken to the extreme of
most important national
priority crucial for the country
deserves should get
greatest allocation of
resources most money for
famously the case well known example
decades ago more than 10 years ago
efficacy effectiveness
innovative industries companies that develop new products
progressively rising standards
of living life getting better and
better
not only not limited to
short-term not far in the future
stimulating the consumer
economy selling more products
well-educated populace smart citizens
political participation voting
safety lack of crime
a host of many
nonetheless regardless
peaked reached a high point
sadly neglected area unfortunately neglected/forgotten
drastically slashing education
budgets cutting money for
schools a lot
ought should
diverted taken to another area
contributed most give the most
past generations older people
modern infrastructure buildings, roads, etc.
political related to politics and voting
economic systems how the economy works
taken for granted not appreciated
struggle fight with
supportive helpful
financially stable family family with money
falls to must be responsible for
find ways locate methods
retirement homes places for old people to live
monthly checks for living
expenses retirement fund
aware knkow about
policy changes reforms
crucial very important
keep in mind be mindful of
debt owed responsible
take good care of them look after well
balance keep both in mind
multitude of priorities many areas to consider
slip down the list be forgotten, become less important
Discuss both views and give you own opinion.
Many believe that new taxes on sugary products are beneficial
for the public while others feel they impinge on individual freedoms. In my
opinion, despite the drawbacks, the benefits to health justify these
regulations.
Those who oppose such laws point out the limits placed on less
affluent customers. The wealthy can still afford to buy sugary foods and drinks
as the taxes are small enough. However, poorer individuals will find that an
extra few dollars for a soda or candy bar is prohibitively expensive. They will
rightly feel the right to make choices about their own health and the foods
they like has been restricted by government. Consumers buying sugary foods and
drinks are already well aware of the associated health risks; they have simply
decided to value short-term gratification over long-term health.
Nonetheless, freedom and safety will always be in conflict and
this change is unequivocally for the public good. Sugar has been shown in
studies to be more harmful that fatty foods and is one of the driving factors
behind a variety of conditions ranging from obesity to diabetes to, allegedly,
cancer. Soda companies like Coca Cola and candy manufacturers like Nestle have
tapped into a basic human desire for sweets to attract customers and build
their brands. Because they were allowed free latitude in the past, the only solution
now is draconian taxes that can begin to slowly dissuade people from sugary
products and eventually break down their dependence to a healthy, moderate
level.
In conclusion, though there are class issues associated with
taxing sugar, these are outweighed by their benefits to public health.
Governments around the world ought to adopt some variation of these important
reforms.
taxes money paid to the government
sugary products cupcakes, cakes, candy, etc.
beneficial good
the public citizens, all people
impinge limit
individual freedoms what individuals are permitted to do
despite the drawbacks regardless of the negatives
justify give reason for
regulations keep in check
oppose go against
point out argue
limits placed on restrictions on
less affluent customers poor people
afford can buy
small enough not too big
find realise
extra few dollars some more money
prohibitively expensive too much to be able to buy
rightly correctly
restricted by government limited by law
consumers people who buy, customers
associated health risks related health problems
value short-term gratification
over long-term health only care about
the present moment
in conflict not in agreement
unequivocally undoubtedly
public good for the benefit of all
fatty foods foods high in fat like pizza, burgers, etc.
driving factors main catalyst for
a variety of conditions many different problems
obesity fat
diabetes a sugar related disease
allegedly supposedly
manufacturers makers
tapped into exploited
attract customers get people to buy it
build their brands become more successful
free latitude leeway to do what they want
draconian old and strict
slowly dissuade over time lessen
break down reduce
dependence need for
moderate level not too much of
class issues related to how much money you make
outweighed stronger than
public health for the good of citizens’ health
ought should
adopt some variation legislate similarly
important reforms crucial changes
The
manufacturing and use of cars damages the environment but their popularity is
increasing.
Why is this?
How could this be controlled?
Even though both production and car use increase pollution, the
auto industry continues to expand. This is because developing nations now have
greater disposable income and governments can limit the resultant environmental
damage through regulation.
The main cause underlying an increasing numbers of cars is
growth in developing countries. Ownership in developed countries peaked decades
ago and many European nations in particular are now adopting greener modes of
transport. However, in developing nations, cars are seen as a status symbol
that boost self-esteem and serve a practical travel purpose. Coupled with
increased per capita GDP, the boom in car ownership is unsurprising. For
example, a growing middle class in Vietnam has driven up purchases of foreign
automobiles dramatically over the last decade. The demand is so great that last
year a Vietnamese company introduced the first domestically produced car. This
same trend is replicated around the world in developing countries.
The most impactful response is from the government. Consumers
will continue to buy cars but the government has control over a range of
possible environmental protective measures. For example, there could be
stricter laws related to emission standards. This would cut down on the average
amount of pollution from individual cars and collectively make a huge
difference. Another measure would be to discourage car ownership by taxing cars
heavily and improving the quality of public transportation. A good example of
this would also be in Vietnam where there is a 200% tax on cars and the
government is building the world’s most expensive subway system in Ho Chi Minh
City. Individuals are unlikely to change their behaviour en masse so it
falls to policymakers to dissuade citizens through proactive reforms and
policies.
In conclusion, more cars can be explained by rising incomes
globally and pragmatic solutions come from government regulation. If taken
seriously, the heavy environmental toll of cars can be curbed.
even though despite
production manufacturing
auto industry making cars
expand grow bigger
greater disposable income more money to spend
limit constrain
resultant environmental damage increasing climate change, polluting the environment
regulation limiting
underlying foundational
ownership have a car
peaked decades ago reach a high point a long time ago
in particular especially
adopting greener modes of
transport using more
environmentally friendly options
status symbol show-off
boost self-esteem feel better about yourself
serve a practical travel
purpose useful
coupled with combine with
per capita GDP average income
boom increase
unsurprising no shock
growing middle class more people with money
driven up increased
dramatically substantially
demand desire
introduced premiered
domestically produced car not a foreign car
trend pattern
replicated repeated
impactful response most effective solution
consumers buyers
control over can regulate
range of possible environmental
protective measures many ways to protect the environment
stricter laws better regulations
emission standards how clean a car is
cut down on reduce
average amount how much is used per person
collectively all together
huge difference big impact
measure action
discourage car ownership dissuade people from buying cars
heavily a lot
200% tax pay doble
subway system underground
en masse all together
falls to policymakers responsibility
of government
dissuade discourage
proactive reforms take an active role in changing
policies laws
explained shown
globally around the world
pragmatic solutions practical countermeasures
government regulation laws
if taken seriously done well
heavy environmental toll hurts the environment a lot
curbed limited
In
many countries, people throw away a lot of food from restaurants and shops.
Why do you think people waste food in this way?
What can be done to reduce the amount of food thrown away?
Food waste is a growing global problem. It happens because
people often buy more than they need and the best countermeasure would be to
cut down on portion sizes.
Food waste is mainly a result of individuals ordering or
purchasing too much food. Many people order extra when dining out to ensure
they are not hungry at the end of the meal. Humans are a planning and
predicting animal and this is a natural instinct. The same drive partly
explains purchasing too much food at the supermarket but there are other
possible sources. For example, ambitious shoppers intending to cook a variety
of dishes during the week, may buy a lot of healthy fruits and vegetables. If
they are busy or cannot summon the initiative, the produce will spoil within a
few days and they will have to throw it out and make other plans.
The solution is to reduce the amount of food people eat. A
reinforcing cycle of over-eating by obese consumers can lead to greater food
waste. People order or buy more than they need and stuff themselves at every
meal. Over time, this becomes an ingrained habit and they purchase increasingly
greater quantities of food, some of which will naturally go bad or be thrown
out if they cannot finish it. A good counter-example to this practice would be
in France, which is famed for smaller portion sizes. Food waste is dramatically
lower in France simply because people eat modest meals and are therefore more
likely to eat all their food. This could be replicated in other nations if
governments reformed school meals and took other key steps.
In conclusion, food waste has deep psychological roots and the
best solution is for individuals to reduce the size of their average meal. A
shift like this will require a concerted effort from both ordinary citizens and
health officials.
growing global problem increasing issue around the world
countermeasure solution
cut down on
portion sizes eat less food
mainly mostly
ensure make sure
natural instinct predisposed towards
drive partly explains desire somewhat illustrates
ambitious shoppers intending people
buying more than they can eat/prepare wanting to
summon the initiative work up the effort to
produce fruit and veggies
spoil go bad
throw it out put in the trash
make other plans do something else
reinforcing cycle feedback loop
over-eating eating too much
obese consumers fat people
stuff themselves eat too much
over time gradually
ingrained habit accustomed to it
increasingly greater quantities
of food larger and larger
portion sizes
naturally go bad inevitably spoil
thrown out put in the trash
finish eat all
counter-example example of the opposite case
practice behaviour
smaller portion sizes less food per meal
dramatically lower much less
modest smaller
replicated repeated
reformed school meals changed what kids eat at school
took other key steps did other things
deep psychological roots part of being human
average meal normal meal
shift change
concerted effort dedicated attempt
ordinary citizens normal people
health officials those in charge of public health
Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?
Many today believe that growing demand for fossil fuels
justifies the continued exploitation of remote natural landscapes. In my
opinion, the advantages of this are enough to warrant its expansion.
The disadvantages all relate to environmental conservation.
Firstly, there have been cases of disastrous oil spills spoiling untouched
natural preserves. This occurred more than a decage ago in an isolated part of
Alaska and resulted in the deaths of thousands of rare species and long-lasting
damage to the ecosystem. Secondly, fossil fuel exploitation in general should
not be encouraged at a time when the Earth is facing a potentially cataclysmic
reckoning with the effects of climate change. The last untouched areas of the
planet should be left in peace and not greedily consumed to feed a problem that
is growing more dangerous daily.
On the other hand, the advantages of drilling for oil and gas in
less populated regions relate to economics and safety. Many countries,
particularly developing ones, are reliant on oil and gas to prop up their
economies. Losing the revenue from these industries would not only affect the
companies themselves but they would pay fewer taxes and employ fewer people,
who would then contribute less to the consumer economy. The second
justification is safety. Companies will continue to drill for oil and gas but
if they do it in residential areas there is the potential for human contamination,
especially when it comes to more dangerous practices such as fracking. By
limiting drilling to remote regions, the human population is safely protected
from the risk of spills and increased air pollution.
In conclusion, the environmental risks do not outweigh the
benefits to the economy and the citizenry that accrue from remote oil and gas
exploitation. There should be protocols to protect the environment but these
must be balanced against humanity’s precedence over nature.
growing demand more need for
fossil fuels justifies oil
and gas are good reason to
continued exploitation more and more taking advantage of
remote natural landscapes far away from civilisation locations
warrant justify
expansion doing more of something
environmental conservation protecting the environment
cases examples
disastrous oil spills really bad environmental problems
spoiling untouched natural
preserves ruining pristine nature
occurred happened
isolated part not near anything else
resulted in the effect was
rare species not common kind of animal
long-lasting damage permanently hurt
ecosystem habitat
at a time when during a moment of
potentially cataclysmic
reckoning possibly very bad
consequences
climate change global warming
last untouched areas few remaining unspoiled pieces of nature
left in peace not bothered
greedily consumed used up
feed take from
growing more dangerous daily becoming stronger all the time
on the other hand however
less populated regions places where people don’t live
reliant depend on
prop up sustain
losing the revenue not getting money
contribute less to the consumer
economy spend less
justification reason
drill dig into the Earth
residential areas places where people live
potential possibility
contamination exposure to
dangerous practices harmful methods
fracking a method of extracting natural gas/oil
limiting containing
remote regions isolated areas
safely protected kept safe
risk threat
outweigh more important
citizenry citizens, people
accrue add up to
protocols rules
balanced against weighed against
precedence over more important than
Many
today feel that most urgent problems can only be solved by international
cooperation.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There are those who claim that we can only solve pressing global
issues today if countries work in concert. In my opinion, international
cooperation holds some promise but it is difficult to align the priorities of
self-interested nations.
Proponents argue that global issues require active participation
from all countries. The best, most recent example of this is climate change.
Threats to the environment are becoming more dire annually and this affects
every nation on Earth equally. Therefore, the best solutions involve signing
international accords. These agreements force nations to abide by certain
regulations and meet benchmarks in order to form a cohesive, global policy that
can mitigate and reverse the effects of climate change. If many governments are
unwilling to commit, it is unlikely that individual nations will then have the
desire to make drastic changes and very little might be done to curb an
imminent global catastrophe.
However, the accords mentioned above have been notorious
failures as each nation has its own individual priorities. Many developed
nations that already have well-developed green industries and eco-friendly
policies in place are happy to sign agreements that benefit both the Earth and
their own financial interests. Other nations, chiefly in the Middle East where
their economies are reliant on fossil fuel production and in developing
countries where the economic consequences would be dire, are less enthusiastic.
Many poorer countries can also justly argue that they contributed little to the
current climate problems in the past so it is unfair to hinder their
development now. This applies for issues outside climate change as nations will
always be in conflict and international cooperation is therefore an impractical
solution to important problems.
In conclusion, though the entire planet working in tandem would
be an ideal approach, it will typically fail due to competing interests. It is
more important that countries act on their own or with like-minded nations and
not push for global reforms.
claim argue
solve pressing global issues fix problems affecting the whole world
in concert working together
international cooperation globally working together
holds some promise might work
align get on the same page
priorities what they value
self-interested nations selfish countries
proponents advocates
active participation committing fully
climate change global warming
threats potential dangers
becoming more dire
annually getting more serious every year
signing international accords agreeing to global pacts
agreements pacts, accords
abide by follow
regulations rules
meet benchmarks reach goals
cohesive unified
global policy plan for the whole Earth
mitigate lessen
reverse fix
commit choose to participate
drastic changes big reforms
curb slow down
imminent global catastrophe coming soon big problems
notorious failures famously haven’t worked
individual priorities their own interests
well-developed green industries solar, wind, electric, etc.
eco-friendly policies
in place already have clean energy laws
financial interests invested in
reliant depend on
fossil fuel production oil and gas
economic consequences hurt their economy
dire very bad
less enthusiastic not excited for
justly argue rightly claim
contributed little don’t give much
hinder their development hold back their progress
applies is the case for
conflict not in agreement
impractical solution won’t work
entire completely
working in tandem working together
ideal approach perfect solution
competing interests in conflict
like-minded nations countries that think the same way
push for global reforms try to make changes the whole world follows
In
many countries, fast food is becoming cheaper and more widely available.
Do the disadvantages of this outweigh the advantages?
Many today are of the belief that the ubiquity of fast food
provides enough enjoyment and economic positives to outweigh its impact on
public health. In my opinion, the disadvantages related to health make this a
negative development.
Those supporting the fast food industry typically point to the
pleasure consumers derive and the employment it provides. There is little to
argue about in terms of enjoyment. Fast food is affordable and tastes good.
That explains its popularity and makes it accessible for people from even the
lowest socioeconomic backgrounds. Moreover, there are obvious economic
benefits. Companies like McDonald’s, Burger King, Baskin Robbins, and Domino’s
Pizza are some of the largest employers globally. Their economic contributions
extend beyond providing poorly paid jobs as they are taxed and thereby
strengthen the federal budgets of both developing and developed nations.
Nonetheless, fast food has a huge impact in the health sector.
Most tangibly, this concerns to obesity. Studies have shown that obesity rates
soar in countries where fast food has become entrenched in the local market.
The best known example of this is in the United States, where obesity is
reaching epidemic proportions. Related and often symptomatic drawbacks include
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure. Foods high in fat,
sugar, and overprocessed ingredients have been proven to exacerbate these
conditions, with heart disease now the single greatest cause of death around
the world. This cannot be blamed entirely on fast food but there are very few
healthy options on most fast food menus and the majority of companies
specialise in quintessentially unhealthy foods like deep fried chicken,
cheeseburgers, pizzas, and tacos.
In conclusion, despite the boons for enjoyment and the economy,
fast food is a negative taken as a whole given its impact on well-being. It is
therefore important to regulate fast food companies to curb their influence.
of the belief believe
ubiquity common
enjoyment like a lot
economic positives helps the economy
outweigh stronger than
public health wellness of most people
related to concern
supporting arguing for
typically point to usually cite
pleasure consumers derive joy people get from
employment jobs
provides create
little to argue about not much to disagree about
in terms of as it relates to
affordable cheap
explains a reason for
accessible can get
lowest socioeconomic
backgrounds poor people
are some of the are among the
globally around the world
economic contributions extend
beyond money they generate also
includes
taxed pay money to the government
strengthen make stronger
federal budgets money the government has to spend
developing poorer countries
developed nations rich countries
health sector health
most tangibly most obviously and clearly
concerns relate to
obesity being very fat
studies have shown research indicates
obesity rates soar more people become fat
entrenched become a strong part of
local market economy
the best known example of this
is clearest instance is
reaching epidemic proportions becoming an emergency
symptomatic drawbacks resultant disadvantages
cardiovascular disease heart disease
diabetes a condition related to eating too much sugary food
high blood pressure heart conditions
foods high in fat food with a lot of fat in them
overprocessed ingredients foods being manufactured repeatedly
exacerbate make worse
heart disease heart conditions
single greatest cause of death
around the world #1 killer
blamed entirely 100% at fault for
healthy options healthy alternatives
specialise focus on
quintessentially
unhealthy definitively unhealthy
boons advantages
taken as a whole given considered
overall considering
well-being health
regulate control
curb limit
influence effect
To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
Real Past IELTS Exam
Many today feel that
countries should prioritise vocational training over higher education due to
changes in the labour market. In my opinion, though there are strong economic
reasons to support this idea, university education holds greater value.
Those in favour of
more practical skills training point out the financial benefits. Most
university graduates are burdened with student debt and face uncertain job
prospects. In contrast, training schools are cheap, fast, and ease students
into steady employment immediately. The jobs they train for are also most
likely recession-proof and durable, including positions as cooks, hotel
managers, and skilled technicians. Someone who is firmly established in such a
job in their early 20s does not have to deal with the pressures associated with
university life and its incumbent debts. Instead, they can begin to set aside
money for a house or start a family.
Nonetheless, lacking a
university degree limits one’s options. The jobs available will pay well
initially and be secure but offer narrow scope for advancement and virtually no
opportunity to switch career paths. An individual with a university degree, on
the other hand, might begin from a lower position but has a higher ceiling on
future earnings. It is also possible for them to explore a variety of fields.
Most good jobs require at least a bachelor’s degree even for simple internship
vacancies. Lacking such a degree, means restricting oneself to manual labour or
service industry jobs. The actual learning that takes place at university,
particularly for those with multi-disciplinary majors or studying at liberal
arts schools, also encourages students to consider a wide range of possible
career options.
In conclusion,
increasing funding for vocational training is an attractive yet short-sighted
approach that curbs possibilities. Governments ought to continue to support
higher education even in dark economic times in order to reap future rewards.
prioritise vocational training focus more on skilled training
higher education university
labour market jobs and employment
strong economic reasons good financial justifications
holds greater value has more importance
practical skills training vocational training for jobs such as cook, electrician,
etc.
financial benefits monetary advantages
burdened with student
debt have lots of money to pay
back
face uncertain job prospects may struggle to get work
in contrast however
ease without effort
steady employment good job
recession-proof can survive difficult economic times
durable secure
skilled technicians electricians, plumbers, IT people
firmly established secure
deal with handle
pressures associated with stress related to
incumbent debts money owed that comes along with uni
set aside money save money
lacking not having
limits one’s options not as many choices
pay well initially make good salary at the beginning
secure safe
narrow scope not diverse, limited
virtually essentially
switch career paths find a new kind of job
university degree bachelor’s degree, masters, etc.
on the other hand however
lower position not as high up
higher ceiling on future
earnings cap on what you can
make in the future
explore look through
variety of fields lots of different jobs, areas
require at least must have at minimum
internship vacancies open unpaid jobs
restricting limiting
manual labour jobs that require hard work
service industry jobs hotels, restaurants, etc.
multi-disciplinary majors studying more than one subject
liberal arts schools schools where you focus on many subjects
encourages inspires
consider think about
wide range of possible career
options many choices for a job
attractive appealing
short-sighted approach not a good long-term strategy
curbs possibilities limits choices
dark economic times when the economy is poor
reap future rewards get a lot out of it later
Discuss both views and give
your own opinion.
Real Past IELTS Exam
Some today are calling
for parents to be held responsible for crimes committed by their children. In
my opinion, there are exceptions but many cases merit greater punishment for
parents.
Those arguing against
this reform point out that parents are not always culpable. There are numerous
instances of loving parents who raise their child well but social problems
still manifest from a young age. This is often the case if the child suffers
from a mental illness such as schizophrenia or a dissociative disorder. These
conditions may stem from simple genetics, in which case parents should not be
punished, or from trauma the primary caregivers are unaware of. For example, if
they have been abused at school or by a relative then it follows logically the
offending, rather than innocent, party should be brought to justice.
Despite the important
exceptions above that courts must sort through, parental abuse and neglect
should be punishable. Studies have shown that most young children who commit
crimes have been abused in some way by their parents. Serial killers are an
extreme but useful case in point. Nearly every serial killer begins antisocial
behaviour from a young age, including the criminal torture of animals. There
are also no known examples of serial killers coming from happy homes; they are
all the product of varying degrees of abuse from their parents. This is clear
evidence that parents play the pivotal role in molding the psyche of young
children. As children grow up and have more influences this may change but for
young children, parents are chiefly responsible and courts should recognise
this fact.
In conclusion, there
are some cases where parents may not be at fault for criminal acts by children
but in most situations they are the driving force. Trying parents for their
child’s crime and seeking treatment for the children would therefore be a
modern, progressive, and positive reform.
calling for wanting
held responsible be tried in court
committed did
exceptions cases that don’t apply
many cases merit most situations deserve
arguing against don’t believe
reform change
culpable responsible
numerous instances many examples
raise their child well bring up a kid in a good way
social problems can’t interact with others well
manifest become real
this is often the case if usually happens when
suffers from a mental illness have a mental disorder
schizophrenia a serious mental illness
dissociative disorder suffering a trauma and then a condition from that
conditions environment
stem from come from
genetics what you are born with, your nature
trauma problems in life
primary caregivers parents or whoever takes care of you
unaware of know about
abused getting hurt
relative someone in your family
follows logically naturally
offending guilty
innocent not guilty
party person
brought to justice tried in court, punished
important exceptions
above key cases mentioned before
courts where you are tried for a crime
sort through work through
parental abuse and
neglect parents hurting or not paying
attention to their kids
punishable can be punished (adjective)
in some way through some method
serial killers people who kill multiple victims
extreme serious
useful case in point important example
nearly every almost all
begins antisocial behaviour starts to behave badly
criminal torture of animals hurting animals
no known examples no instances of
coming from happy
homes raised well
the product of varying degrees
of abuse the result of different
levels of abuse
clear evidence obvious support
play the pivotal role important part
molding the psyche influencing their mind
influences what effects you
chiefly responsible mostly accountable
recognise this fact be aware of
at fault their responsibility
driving force main influence
trying parents putting parents on trial
seeking treatment therapy
modern new
progressive modern
positive reform good change
To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
Real Past IELTS Exam/Test
Many today feel that
the home no longer plays the largest role in child development. In my opinion,
though outside factors have become increasingly invasive, family life is still
more influential.
Those who believe
children these days are largely shaped by the outside world often focus on the
expanding importance of technology. Decades ago, it was more common for
families to engage in conversation throughout the day, at dinner, and during
holidays. Today, each family member might be more engaged with their
smartphone, tablet, or laptop. For example, children now have constant access
to streaming video sites like YouTube. Instead of watching cartoons for an hour
a day on television, they can watch shows all day long, both in and outside the
home. The result is that kids often find niche channels and parents have a
difficult time monitoring and keeping up with the appropriacy of their
interests and influences.
Nonetheless, family
life remains the heart of early psychological development. Children are
unlikely to have much access to new technology in their early years when
researchers say the majority of personality formation occurs. If parents are
strict, unforgiving and withhold their love then children begin to either turn
inwards feeling rejected or strive compulsively for their parent’s esteem.
These early, learned behaviours will manifest themselves in progressively more
unhealthy behaviours and evolve as the child matures. Conversely, a child who
is loved unconditionally but given honest feedback from their parents has a
much greater chance of becoming a well-adjusted adult with strong role models
to imitate.
In conclusion, despite
the ubiquity of technology today, family is the key catalyst in early
development. Regardless of changes in society, parents will continue to be the
main influence for their children in the foreseeable future.
plays the largest role do the most
child development how a kid grows up
outside factors not limited to the home
increasingly invasive more and more influential
influential have an impact
largely shaped mostly molded by
the outside world not in the home
expanding importance more and more important
decades ago 20+ years ago
engage in take part in
family member a person in your family
engaged with interacting with
constant access can use any time
streaming video sites Netflix, YouTube, Disney+, etc.
all day long the whole day
niche channels not very popular, odd videos
monitoring supervising
keeping up with knowing about
appropriacy if they should/shouldn’t be watching them
remains the heart of still crucial
psychological development how their brain, emotions develop
unlikely probably won’t happen
access can get
early years when young
majority most of
personality formation how their temperament develops
occurs happens
strict harsh
unforgiving do not forgive, not lenient
withhold not give
turn inwards become introverted
rejected feel spurned
strive compulsively try very hard
parent’s esteem parent’s opinion of them
learned behaviours habits
manifest appear as
progressively more and more
evolve change over time
matures become older, more adult
conversely in contrast
unconditionally without strings attached
honest feedback honest opinion
greater chance more likely
well-adjusted adult normal person
strong role models someone to look up to
imitate copy
ubiquity everywhere
key catalyst chief cause
regardless of nonetheless
continue to be still remain
foreseeable future as far as we can see in the future
Discuss both views and give
your own opinion.
Real Past IELTS Exam
Some believe cinemas
should show a wide breadth of films from around the world, while others worry
about the globalising effect on local culture. In my opinion, though reliance
on domestic film can contribute greatly to the cultural development of a
nation, it is too severe a restriction.
Those wary of the
pernicious effects of films from other countries point to the importance of
nationally produced films. When a country imports few films from abroad, they
are forced into making more and better movies to attract audiences. For
instance, in the 1980s immediately after the cultural revolution in China, few
foreign films were shows. Studios instead funded ambitious Chinese film-makers
like Zhang Yimou, who would later go on to lead the early 1990s ascent of
Chinese new wave cinema. This same pattern has been repeated in South Korea,
Japan, France, and numerous other countries at different periods in the 20th
century. The sum effect on culture for each respective nation has been massive
and, in many cases, represents their most recent defining cultural
achievements.
Nonetheless, watching
foreign films allows individuals to enjoy the best entertainment on offer. It
would be cruel to ban foreign films and enforce a sub-par viewing experience in
countries with under-developed film industries. Film is, after all, mainly an
enjoyable form of relaxation. The most popular movies tend to come from
Hollywood and include blockbuster superhero franchises, Oscar-worthy dramas,
and comedies. Many local theatre chains would struggle to stay in business
without foreign films and the new online streaming options mean that audiences
would likely just subscribe to Netflix or download movies illegally. The actual
cultural benefits of such restrictions might therefore be questionable while
theatre-goers would surely be deprived of quality recreation.
In conclusion, the examples
of isolated national film industries do not outweigh the diversionary value of
film. There are other methods of preserving and encouraging culture besides
censoring outside influences.
wide breadth lots of different
globalising effect making the whole world the same
local culture the country in question
reliance dependence
domestic film film made in their country
contribute greatly add a lot to
cultural development the progress of art/culture
severe extreme
restriction regulation
wary suspicious about
pernicious effects bad impacts
point to argue
nationally produced films movies made in that country
imports what is brought into the country
abroad foreign
forced into must
attract audiences bring people in
immediately after right after, following
cultural revolution in China a program of restriction in China in the 1960s and 70s
studios film companies
funded ambitious gave money to promising
later go on after this would
ascent rise
Chinese new wave cinema early 1990s movement of good Chinese films
same pattern identical trend
repeated happened again
numerous many
different periods various times
20th century 1900-2000
sum effect total impact
respective nation country in question
massive huge
in many cases most of the time
represents total
most recent defining cultural
achievements most important art made
recently
nonetheless regardless
on offer available
cruel mean
ban restrict
enforce make sure it is followed
sub-par viewing experience bad time at the movies
under-developed not mature, not advanced
form make up
tend to usually
blockbuster superhero
franchises Marvel and DC movies
Oscar-worthy dramas high-brow films
local theatre chains cinemas in your country
struggle have a tough time
stay in business continue to operate
streaming options online services for watching videos
audiences the people who watch
subscribe sign up to
download movies illegally steal films
actual cultural benefits real advantages for the culture
restrictions limits
questionable doubtful
theatre-goers people who watch movies
deprived of quality recreation taken away the fun
isolated alone
outweigh more important than
diversionary value important distractions
preserving keeping intact
encouraging helping
censoring outside influences restricting foreign films
Discuss both views and give
your opinion.
Real Past IELTS Exam
Many today are worried
about the potential drawbacks of artificial intelligence. In my opinion, these
concerns are legitimate but on the whole A.I. will allow for new heights to
human endeavour.
The chief associated
worries concern its misuse by humans initially and machines later. The former
is already coming to pass as automation has phased out many traditional jobs.
As artificial intelligence becomes more sophisticated, the positions in
jeopardy will transition from low-skilled factory staff to data analysts and
other white-collar workers. The fear is that companies will be motivated solely
by their bottom line, lay off many employees and trigger mass social unrest.
Some also believe A.I. portends darker scenarios akin to the apocalyptic
dystopias of films like The Matrix and Terminator. This is a possibility though
it is impossible to estimate its likelihood.
The speculations above
should be taken seriously but they pale in comparison to the technologies A.I.
can complement. Companies ranging from Google to Amazon to Tesla are investing
heavily in this industry because of its enormous potential. For example,
self-driving cars are fast becoming a reality and will reduce the number of
vehicular accidents massively. Policymakers in government will be able to take
advantage of sophisticated algorithms to project economic policy and positively
enhance the lives of billions. In the consumer sphere, smartphones will become
increasingly helpful, freeing up individuals to focus their time on work,
family, and leisure. This is only a partial list and the most intriguing and
impactful applications have yet to be unearthed.
In conclusion,
artificial intelligence poses risks to the labour market and the future of
humanity, but the opportunities for new projects should take priority. It is
important to find a balance and methods of mitigating the dangers.
worried about concerned
potential drawbacks possible negatives
artificial intelligence really smart computers/robots
concerns worries
legitimate justified
on the whole overall
new heights greatest achievements
human endeavour what man has accomplished
chief associated worries
concern main issues relate to
misuse abuse
initially in the beginning
coming to pass happening now
automation robotic
phased out disappeared
traditional jobs factory workers, old types of labour
sophisticated complex
positions in jeopardy jobs in danger
transition change from
low-skilled factory staff people working in factories, manual labour
data analysts people who look closely at numbers, data
white-collar workers office workers, managers, etc.
motivated solely mainly interested in
bottom line profits
lay off fire
trigger mass social unrest cause unhappiness
portends darker scenarios akin to can
foresee bad outcomes similar to
apocalyptic dystopias nightmarish futures
possibility chance
estimate guess
likelihood chance of happening
speculations guesses
taken seriously treated with respect
pale in comparison to much weaker than
complement supplement
ranging from including
investing heavily putting a lot of money into
enormous potential a lot of possibility
self-driving cars automated automobiles
fast becoming a reality quickly becoming true
vehicular accidents massively car crashes a lot
policymakers law-makers, politicians
take advantage of sophisticated
algorithms exploit computer programs
project economic policy predict how to manage the economy
positively enhance have a good impact on
consumer sphere what people buy
increasingly helpful more and more positive
freeing up allowing for
focus their time have more time for
leisure free time
partial list not complete
most intriguing most interesting
impactful applications used to the most effect
unearthed uncovered
poses risks has dangers
labour market workers
take priority more important
balance keep things equal
methods means
mitigating lessening the impact of
dangers risks
To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
Real Past IELTS Writing Exam/Test
Some believe that
learning about the past is best done through written documents, while others
feel video is a more accurate medium. In my opinion, recent films in particular
can be useful but most information about the past is contained in documents.
Those who argue in
favour of video recordings can point to their accuracy. Images transform every
observation into a firsthand account. For example, there are documentaries and
home videos starting in the 1960s that show how people lived. By watching these
films, a social anthropologist can spot more than the surface content. They can
see how people talked to each other in real life, what products they used, get
a sense for the fashion and the way people spoke. In order to better understand
their subject, historians would give anything for an opportunity to have
similar film of the Ancient Greeks or Romans.
However, video is
limited, especially in terms of its access to important persons and events of
the past. It might reveal how everyday people behaved but the facts of what was
going on behind the scenes is contained in firsthand notes, memos, letters, and
official documents. A good example of this would be the exhaustive four volume
biography of Lyndon Johnson written by Robert Caro. A famously meticulous
writer, he has poured over thousands of documents ranging from private diaries
and correspondences to the laws and orders issued at the time. Slowly, a good
observor of the past is able to piece together disparate pieces of information
into a narrative that approaches truth. There simply does not exist the same
repository of video evidence from any period to yet allow for such a complete
understanding of individuals or historic periods.
In conclusion, the value
of film may increase in the future but documents still offer the greatest
insights into the past. It is important to be mindful that all history is
speculation but the best history sticks closely to the facts.
best done better approach
written documents books, notes, diaries, etc.
accurate medium best way
in particular especially
argue in favour of believe that
transform change into
observation watching
firsthand account live account in person, not secondhand
home videos films made at home
spot find/see
surface content what is immediately apparent
get a sense for have some understanding of
subject what they are studying
would give anything willing to sacrifice anything
opportunity chance
in terms of when it comes to
access can get to
reveal uncover
behind the scenes what is happening where people can’t see
firsthand notes what people wrote themselves
memos notes
official documents orders, receipts, reports, etc.
exhaustive comprehensive
volume book
famously meticulous writer well-known for doing good research
poured over read closely
ranging from including
private diaries journals
correspondences letters
orders demands
observor someone watching
piece together disparate pieces
of information combine facts
narrative story
approaches truth gets close to being accurate
repository collection
complete understanding fully know about
historic periods times in the past
greatest insights biggest takeaways
mindful aware of
speculation guesses
sticks closely to the facts not speculate
Do you agree or disagree?
Real Past IELTS Exam Essay
There have been recent
calls for the regulation of mobile phones in public areas. In my opinion,
though this would have a positive effect on social interactions, a complete ban
is unrealistic and impractical.
Those in favour of
such sweeping reforms can point to reduced communication in society. Look
inside any public space, whether it be a library, a store, a bus, or a park,
and most likely the majority of individuals will be staring at their phones.
This stands in stark contrast to the days before smartphones when people had to
resort to talking to each other, or, at worst, reading a book to curb social
anxiety. In the last two decades, mobiles have greatly reduced chance
encounters, potential friendships, and conversations with both strangers and
friends. The long-term effects of this are still unknown but it is safe to say
that future generations will be less sociable and dynamic and more isolated and
passive.
Nonetheless, banning
phones in public is purely theoretical as they have become indispensable. Most
jobs require employees to either be available by phone, for example doctors and
police officers, or to use their phones throughout the day, as is common with
businessmen and lawyers. This means most people must have their phone on them
in public places for work reasons. Moreover, phone addiction has reached a
point where nearly everyone in public is either messaging, playing a game,
reading the news, or scrolling through social media. These have become
important escapes for individuals and serve the practical purpose of minimising
boredom during breaks and while waiting. Phones are therefore no longer a
luxury but a key ingredient in daily life.
In conclusion, despite
the impact of phones on social interaction, I believe a ban would interfere too
much with ingrained habits. It is instead the responsibility of individuals to
police their own behaviour.
recent calls people asking for
regulation rules about
public areas libraries, parks, etc.
positive effect good impact
social interactions talking to people
complete ban totally restricting
unrealistic not likely
impractical can’t really happen
in favour of preferring
sweeping reforms big changes
reduced communication less talking to each other
public space outside the home
whether it be if it is… or
most likely often
majority most of
staring looking at
stands in stark contrast
to big difference to
resort have to use
at worst worst case scenario
curb social anxiety be calm in public
greatly reduced chance
encounters much fewer
opportunities for new meetings
potential friendships possible relationships
long-term effects how things will be impacted in the future
unknown still up in the air
it is safe to say that will likely be true that
less sociable not as friendly
dynamic active, malleable
isolated alone
passive not active
purely theoretical only works in theory/as an idea
indispensable can’t be given up
available always on call
as is common with can be seen in
have their phone on them always available
phone addiction can’t stop using a phone
reached a point finally arrived at
scrolling looking through
escapes getaway from
serve the practical
purpose have value because
minimising boredom reducing feeling bored
luxury extravagance
key ingredient essential component
interfere get in the way of
ingrained habits can’t change behaviour
police verb of police meaning ‘control’
Real Past IELTS Exam
Many believe that in
order to become immersed in another language and culture it is important to travel
to the country in question. I agree generally, though there are certain
exceptions depending on the purpose for learning.
Those with an academic
interest in a given culture often do not need to travel there. This is
particularly true if they are researching an historic period. For example, a
scholar learning about Ancient Greece going there today, will only see ruins
and a radically different culture. Ancient Greek is no longer even spoken. It
would be much more profitable for a student of the Ancients to learn the
language fluently on their own and become steeped in their histories and
classic literature. The works of Euripides, Sophocles and Herodotus will
provide far greater insight into the history, culture, and language of the
Ancient Greeks than the few vestiges from thousands of years ago still standing
today.
Nonetheless, cases
like the one detailed above are rare and most people will benefit greatly from
a more immersive experience. The difference between those studying abroad and
learning in their own country is illustrative. Students attempting to learn
English, for example, will need to be naturally adept at languages to become
fluent without living in an English-speaking country. The majority of learners
will improve faster when making daily transactions in English and learning in
the real world outside the classroom. The cultural advantages are also
self-evident. English movies and TV shows are realistic to varying degrees but
pale in comparison to having actual foreign friends and experiencing firsthand
their traditions and culture.
In conclusion, apart
from esoteric academic study, nothing can replace the experience of living in
another country. Anyone fully committed to understanding the culture and
language of another country must factor in a period of time in residence there.
immersed completely part of
in question relevant here
generally overall
certain exceptions some cases outside the rule
purpose reason
academic interest scholarly interest
a given culture the nation in question
particularly true especially the case
historic period part of history
scholar researcher, student
Ancient Greece the Greeks from thousands of years ago
ruins old buildings, monuments
radically different culture completely different culture
Ancient Greek the language of the Ancient Greeks
profitable benefit more from
Ancients Ancient peoples
on their own by themselves
steeped in immersed in
classic literature old books
works classic literature
provide far greater insight a lot more helpful
vestiges remnants
still standing today not yet gone
nonetheless regardless
cases like the one detailed
above examples such as the one just
mentioned
rare only sometimes
benefit greatly get a lot out of
more immersive experience more deeply a part of
illustrative shows
naturally adept have a knack for
fluent able to speak well
majority most of
daily transactions paying for things in daily life
real world outside the
classroom real life
self-evident obvious
realistic to varying degrees true to some extent
pale in comparison to not as strong as
firsthand your own experience
traditions passed down beliefs and behaviours
apart from besides
esoteric academic study odd area to learn about
nothing can replace irreplaceable
fully committed 100% engaged in
factor in consider
in residence live there
In some cultures, children are
often told that they can achieve anything if they try hard enough.
What are the advantages and
disadvantages of giving children this message?
Cambridge IELTS 15
In many countries, it
is common for children to be told anything is possible if they set their mind
to it. In my opinion, this can lead to great achievements, but for the majority
engenders feelings of inadequacy.
Some people benefit
from a positive emphasis on effort and achievement. The best examples of this
come from the United States where famously every child is encouraged to pursue
their dreams, no matter how aspirational and unrealistic. Those who succeed
serve as role models and evidence the efficacy of pushing children to try to
achieve anything. For example, the number of successful entrepreneurs and
artists who have left their mark globally from the U.S.A is staggering and
includes figures like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Michael Jackson, Warren Buffet,
and Will Smith. These people often give encouraging interviews where they
reiterate the importance of having passion and grit to achieve transcendent
fame.
However, the cases
above are exceptions and considering them the rule only hurts the self-esteem
of the general populace. When an individual is told they can accomplish
anything through sheer determination and they then fail to become rich and
successful, they have no one to blame but themselves. The truth about the
connection between effort and achievement is more nuanced than the platitude
typically supplied to children. There is a complex interplay between talent,
effort, and luck required to produce great achievements and all high-achievers
are subject to determining factors beyond simply hard work. Teaching children
otherwise sets them up for self-doubt, disillusionment, and delusions of
grandeur that will weigh on them throughout adulthood. Hard work is an
essential ingredient but supposing it guarantees success will only lead to
resentment towards oneself and others.
In conclusion, while
teaching children that hard work ensures achievement produces great
individuals, overall, it breeds insecurity. Parents ought to instead encourage
a positive mindset with less lofty expectations.
common ubiquitous
anything is possible you can do whatever you want
set their mind to it try to achieve it
great achievements big accomplishments
majority most of
engenders feelings of
inadequacy hurt self-esteem
positive emphasis good focus
famously well-known
encouraged told to
pursue their dreams follow their passion
aspirational high goal
unrealistic not likely to happen
serve as role models good examples of
evidence verb for support/evidence
efficacy noun for something that works
pushing encouraging
successful entrepreneurs people who started their own businesses
left their mark globally had an impact on the world
staggering very impressive
figures people
encouraging pushing
reiterate say again
passion what you love
grit determination
transcendent fame really well-known
cases examples
exceptions not common, can’t be generalised
considering them the rule think they are common
self-esteem how you feel about yourself
general populace most people
accomplish achieve
sheer determination pure grit
blame fault
connection link
nuanced complex
platitude simple statement
supplied given to
complex interplay complicated relationship between
produce great achievements accomplish a lot
high-achievers people who accomplish a lot
subject to are vulnerable to
determining factors what makes the difference, decisive
otherwise apart from that
sets them up prepares them for
self-doubt lack of confidence, low self-esteem
disillusionment coming to grips with rewality
delusions of grandeur thinking yourself amazing
weigh on them hold them down
throughout adulthood all their lives
essential ingredient key part
supposing making the assumption that
guarantees success ensures achievement
resentment hate
ensures achievement guarantees success
breeds insecurity makes people feel bad about themselves
instead encourage better to push
positive mindset optimistic outlook
less lofty expectations not such big goals
Discuss both these views and
give your own opinion.
IELTS Cambridge 15
There are those who
would argue that advertising has become so pervasive, it hardly has any effect
anymore. In my opinion, while people have developed habits to ignore ads, they
still achieve their desired effect on the whole.
The main argument
against the power of ads is they can be avoided. Online advertising is a good
example of this. Users rarely click on or even glance at a website’s
combination of pop-up ads, banners, mailing list requests, and auto-playing
video ads. These have become so common that consumers have developed the
unconscious practice of skipping ads on YouTube, quickly closing pop-ups and
scrolling past in-page advertising. Advertisers have tried to counter this by
making their marketing less conspicuous, as with ads that resemble real posts
on social media sites like Instagram, but their sheer frequency means they can
be easily identified and do not stand out.
However, despite the
best efforts of users, advertisements are still effective. Most people ignore
most ads most of the time. This is something that advertisers expect and build
into their marketing budgets. These days marketing is the major source of
earnings for the largest companies in the world, including Facebook and Google,
because of more sophisticated targeted ads. Savvy marketers can sort through
demographics and cross-test content for different audiences until they hone in
on the most efficient advertising solutions. They can then replicate these ads
and invest more money into the well-performing ones, with the financial
justification coming from clicks and sales conversions. Advertising today, in
reality, is far more effective than at any point in the past because of the raw
data available to target potential consumers and the concrete feedback on
succcessful ads.
In conclusion, despite
the best efforts of ordinary citizens to circumvent advertising, technological
innovations have given marketers more power than ever before. This portends
badly for future generations and it is important that lawmakers enact
regulations on marketers.
pervasive common
hardly barely
developed habits become accustomed to
ignore not pay attention to
desired effect what they want to happen
on the whole overall
avoided ignore
rarely click on don’t often open
glance at look at
combination mix
pop-up ads advertisements that appear on websites
banners ads on the sides and tops of websites
mailing list requests asking for your email
auto-playing video ads ads that play automatically
consumers customers
unconscious practice ingrained habit
skipping ads not watching ads
quickly closing pop-ups x-ing out of ads
scrolling past in-page
advertising not looking at ads
counter fight against
less conspicuous not as obvious
resemble look like
sheer frequency great amount of
easily identified can be recongnised
stand out clear
despite the best efforts of regardless of trying
most of the time usually
expect anticipate
build into accoutn for
marketing budgets money for ads
these days nowadays
major source of earnings where they make most money
more sophisticated targeted ads complicated ways of sending out ads
savvy marketers smart advertisers
sort through demographics analyse groups of people
cross-test content send different content to different people to see if it works
audiences potential customer base
hone in on focus on
efficient advertising solutions good
ways to advertise
replicate reproduce
well-performing ones ads that are working
financial justification makes sense because they make money
clicks opening ads
sales conversions finalising a purchase
in reality in fact
far more effective work better
any point in the past any time before
raw data available amount of information they have
target potential consumers send ads to specific groups/people
concrete feedback on
succcessful ads clear results from
their ads
ordinary citizens normal people
circumvent avoid
innovations new ideas
more power than ever before most effective now
portends badly looks bad for the future
lawmakers enact
regulations politicians make laws
about
To what extent do you agree or
disagree with this statement?
Cambridge IELTS 15
The popularity of
physical newspapers and books is in steep decline, nearing irrelevance. In my
opinion, although select segments of the population still value books, the move
towards free online media is inevitable.
The argument against
this is that certain individuals continue to pay for print versions. These tend
to be older people and only applies to the most well-known books and
newspapers. For example, The New York Times still generates sizeable revenue
from subscriptions and is one of the only magazines in the United States currently
publishing a daily, physical edition. Moreover, hard copies of books are still
popular. The vast majority of middle-aged and older people relish the texture
and character of actual books and lack the technological know-how to download
E-Books. Even many younger people prefer reading paperbacks and hardcovers to
reduce eye strain.
Nonetheless, someday
nearly everyone will read solely online. The clearest evidence for this can be
seen in the number of publishers resigned to discontinue printing such as The
Boston Globe, The Atlantic, and The Independent. Those still in print have seen
circulation drop precipitously as individuals access the same news for free,
more conveniently on their mobile devices. This same trend is occurring slowly
with E-Books due to the rise of Amazon’s online platforms. Companies charging
for online subscriptions have found their readership is trending towards
obsolescence as competitors are willing to post free content and earn profits
through targeted advertising. These are entrenched habits for young people and
it is only a matter of time until print media disappears entirely.
In conclusion, a rapid
decline in publishing cannot be halted as reading habits have changed
irrevocably. This means websites will have to become as reliable and
responsible as newspapers.
physical newspapers actually printed papers
steep decline decreasing quickly
irrelevance not important anymore
select segments certain parts of
value importance
move movement/development
free online media websites, blogs
inevitable can’t be stopped
certain individuals some people
tend to be are usually
only applies just relates to
most well-known famous
generates sizeable revenue makes a lot of money
subscriptions signing up to receive regularly
currently publishing now releasing
edition copy of a book/magazine
hard copies physical book
vast majority most of
middle-aged 40s or 50s
relish really enjoy
texture how it feels
actual books real, physical books
lack not having
technological know-how ability to use tech
download E-Books purchase and keep online books
paperbacks soft cover, physical books
hardcovers hard, large cover books
reduce eye strain not hurt your eyes so much
read solely online only read online
clearest evidence best instance
resigned accepted
discontinue printing stop publishing
still in print continuing to publish
circulation drop
precipitously sales falling a lot
mobile devices smartphones, tablets
trend pattern
occurring happening
rise increase
Amazon’s online platforms Kindle, Audible, etc.
charging paying for
readership people who read
trending towards
obsolescence starting to disappear
competitors other publishers
post free content put up articles for no charge
earn profits make money
targeted advertising ads at specific people/groups
entrenched habits can’t change habits
only a matter of time until will eventually happen
entirely completely
rapid decline quickly decrease
halted stopped
reading habits how people read
irrevocably can’t be reversed
reliable can be trusted
In some countries, owning a
home rather than renting one is very important for people.
Why might this be the case?
Do you think this is a positive
or negative situation?
Cambridge IELTS 15
Many people today
value owning their own home over renting. In my opinion, this is part of a
natural human desire for security and prestige but it contains risks.
The source of this
desire is a need for stability and respect. An individual who does not own
their own home must pay rent to a landlord. This hangs over them and
necessitates maintaining a job with a steady salary and balancing rent against
other living expenses. Once a person owns their own home, they are then able to
spend their money more freely and consider different employment without the
fear of becoming homeless. Moreover, having a home lends an air of
respectability. Only the wealthy are able buy a house and most homeowners take
pride in the size and condition of their home as a sign of their social
standing.
Nonetheless, home
ownership is a negative trend as it forces unrealistic expectations on
millions. Most people live in city apartments with rents and are not capable of
buying a house. The pressure to buy one is likely to engender feelings of
inadequacy and resentment towards the upper classes. This famously fueled the
sub-prime mortgage scandals of the early 2000s in the United States when millions
borrowed more than they could afford to buy homes, then defaulted on their
payments and lost a lifetime of investment. Had these same people opted to
rent, they would have saved more money and could have invested in other forms
of capital such as the stock market.
In conclusion, owning
a home is innately desirable but in the end causes more harm than good due to
the pressure it places on individuals. Many people have learned this lesson and
home ownership may begin to decline in the future.
renting paying monthly for
part of a piece of
natural human desire inherent to what people want
security safety
prestige respect/admiration
contains risks is dangerous
stability secure
respect admiration
pay rent give monthly money for
hangs over them oppresses them
necessitates maintaining a job must stay employed
steady salary consistent money each month
balancing moderating
living expenses money spent on food, travel, entertainment, etc.
spend their money more
freely buy whatever they want
consider think about
homeless living on the streets
lends an air of respectability makes one seem important
homeowners people who have a house
pride self-esteem
condition how things are
sign signal, representation
social standing how others view you
forces unrealistic
expectations makes people try to live
up an image
city apartments apartment blocks
not capable can’t
engender feelings make them feel
inadequacy feeling not good enough
resentment antipathy towards
upper classes rich people
famously fueled notoriously was the source of
sub-prime mortgage scandals people not being able to pay for their homes
early 2000s 2000-2010
borrowed took money they have to pay back later
afford be able to buy
defaulted were not able to pay back
lifetime of investment entire life of putting money into
invested putting money into
capital money
stock market Wall Street, trading companies publicly
innately desirable naturally want
in the end finally
more harm than good hurts more than helps
decline decrease
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some today feel that university students should focus completely
on their studies, while others feel it is important to have a diverse range of
interests and activities. In my opinion, extracurriculars are a key part of the
university experience.
Those who advocate students dedicating themselves solely to
academics can point out the singular learning opportunity. An undergraduate is
typically paying large sums of money, burdening themselves with student debt in
most cases, in order to become an expert in a given field. This is the only
period in life they will have to study a single, chosen subject without the pressures
of work. Freedom from a job allows them to invest fully in academics and learn
the theories and skills that will form the basis of their entire professional
career. Some would argue that there is little value in diluting this experience
by taking on other responsibilities.
Nonetheless, outside activities are also an important element of
higher education. There are countless examples of successful individuals who
joined a comedy or art club unrelated to their major and later ended up working
in that field. Even those who do not receive such tangible rewards from their
extracurriculars can learn a lot. For example, a student may opt to become
involved with a local charity, university initiative or work a part-time job.
These will all be formative experiences and may be more memorable and useful
for them than the subject they study. Many graduates today switch career paths
soon after university regardless, so the respective value of these other
activities will increase as they look back on their college experience and
recognise what was truly instrumental in their development.
In conclusion, though university is a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity to focus on a single subject, I believe finding activities outside
the classroom also has value. Students should prioritise academics but not
ignore the full breadth of learning experiences on offer.
focus completely pay attention to totally
diverse range lots of different
extracurriculars outside academics
key part essential element of
advocate support
dedicating committing
solely only
point out argue
singular learning opportunity only chance to learn about
undergraduate first four years of university
sums amounts
burdening stuck under
student debt money you must pay back after graduation
a given field whatever calling they choose
period in life time in their life
pressures of work feeling stressed or burdened by work
invest fully commit to completely
theories ideas
skills practical skills
form the basis make up the foundation for
entire professional career whole working time
little value not much importance
diluting watering down, making weaker
taking on committing to
nonetheless regardless
important element key part
higher education university/college
countless examples many instances
unrelated to their major nothing to do with what they studied
ended up finally/in the end
tangible rewards actually getting something out of
opt choose
local charity nearby community organisation
university initiative uni program
part-time job hourly paid work
formative experiences shaping life experiences
memorable unforgettable
switch career paths change jobs
regardless nonetheless
respective belonging to the specific area mentioned
look back on remember
recognise identify
truly instrumental actually important
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity chance that only happens one time
prioritise consider more important
ignore not pay attention to
full breadth diverse range of
on offer available
Discuss both sides and give
your own opinion.
Real Past IELTS Exam
There are many who
doubt the logic of spending money and time on wild animals when there are so
many humans in need. In my opinion, the valid reasons to prioritise humanity do
not outweigh the fact that animals more desperately require refuge.
Those who advocate for
less aid for animals believe that human life is inherently more valuable.
Humans are capable of higher reasoning skills, have more emotionally complex
lives, and most importantly, we share a primary obligation to members of our
own species. A good example of this would be when humans and animals come into
conflict. Recently, a boy fell into a gorilla cage at a zoo and the wild animal
was killed to protect the child. There was a large public outcry but only
extremists would argue the human should die in such situations. Increased
funding for wildlife in effect means reduced resources allocated to charities
for the underprivileged and the implicit elevation of animals over humans.
However, the risk to
wild animals is pressing and justifies responsible action. Despite the
vulnerability of particular humans, nothing imperils humanity as a whole. This
is not the case for endangered animals like bald eagles, cheetahs, lions, and
polar bears. They face threats ranging from the impact of climate change to deforestation
to poaching. Those are all a direct result of human activity. Without our help,
there is a very real chance that some species on the brink will go extinct in
the coming decades. Once they have gone extinct, there will be no way to bring
them back and this is the existential threat that ought to compel continued
funding for programs aimed at wildlife conservation.
In conclusion, thought
human life is more valuable, the danger looming for at-risk animals is greater
and validates compassionate effort. The longer we neglect animals, the greater
the chances of extinction.
doubt the logic question the reasoning
wild animals animals living outside homes, in nature
in need vulnerable
valid reasons good justifications
prioritise humanity put humans first
outweigh more important than
more desperately require refuge more urgently need protection
advocate support
inherently naturally
higher reasoning skills thinking ability
emotionally complex lives have a range of complicated emotions
most importantly the crucial factor being
share a primary obligation have an important duty
members parts of
come into conflict fight
gorilla cage where they keep gorillas at a zoo
protect keep safe
large public outcry lots of people angry
extremists people with extreme opinions
in effect essentially
reduced resources allocated
to less money given to
underprivileged poor people
implicit elevation indirectly raising
pressing important, urgent
justifies responsible action give good reasons to take steps
vulnerability weakness
particular humans individual people
imperils endangers
as a whole altogether
this is not the case it is not true of
endangered animals animals with low population numbers
face threats ranging from are imperiled by
deforestation cutting down forests
poaching hunting animals
direct result caused by
human activity what people do
on the brink nearly
extinct eradicated
the coming decades in next 20 – 30 years
bring them back return
existential threat risk related to their existence
ought to compel should force
aimed at geared towards
conservation keeping safe
looming on the horizon
at-risk animals vulnerable animals
validates compassionate effort justifies caring and helping
neglect not paying attention to
the longer … the
greater the more time it takes, the more harm
Which solution is better?
Real Past IELTS Exam
Many cities today are
expanding upwards to accommodate surging urban populations. In my opinion, this
can help preserve nearby land for other uses and is a better solution than
encouraging urban sprawl.
Some would argue that
tall cities present challenges for inhabitants and a spread-out city offers
better quality of life. Condensed urban areas with lots of tall apartment
blocks, like in New York City or Shanghai, are famously difficult to live in
due to the effects of overcrowding on sanitation, safety, and traffic
conditions. In contrast, decentralised cities like Los Angeles and Nashville
allow for the development of unique individual neighborhoods, more space for
residential construction and a reduction of the urban issues listed above.
Individuals living in these cities often report greater feelings of
satisfaction and many ‘transplants’ move to such cities because of the better
living standards.
However, those in
favour of taller buildings can logically point out the resultant benefits for
the area around a city. It is often hard to check the growth of economically
important cities and that can lead to massive urban sprawl, as is in the case
around Mexico City and Tokyo. By building more skyscrapers, the surrounding
area can be preserved or used in another way. Pristine natural lands can be
designated as national parks. If the city requires more food to feed its
population, there could be proximately located farms with fast delivery times.
This surplus land could also be turned into quiet suburban towns to give
residents the choice of raising a family outside the city and still earning a
good wage and having easy access to the cultural benefits of large
metropolises.
In conclusion,
horizontal cities facilitate some positive living conditions but taller cities
make more sense in the modern world. It is, nonetheless, important to strike a
balance and mitigate the issues caused by growing urban populations with
quality infrastructure.
expanding upwards growing taller
accommodate surging urban
populations increasing number of
people living in cities
preserve nearby land keep land around cities safe
other uses can be utilised for other purposes
encouraging urban sprawl advocating for spread-out, large cities
argue believe
present challenges make it difficult
spread-out city city taking up lots of area
better quality of life higher standard of living
condensed urban areas smaller cities with lots of people
apartment blocks residential buildings
famously difficult notoriously hard
overcrowding too many people
sanitation cleanliness
safety how dangerous/safe a place is, crime
traffic conditions how busy the streets are
decentralised cities spread-out cities
unique individual neighborhoods disctinctive districts in a city
residential construction houses, condos, apartments
reduction less of
report say they have
satisfaction feeling happy with
transplants people who move to a new city to live
better living standards better quality of life
logically point out rationally argue
resultant benefits advantages that come as a result
check control
skyscrapers very tall buildings
preserved kept safe
pristine natural lands beautiful scenery
designated set aside for
national parks parks owned by the government
proximately located farms nearby farms
fast delivery times can get their goods more quickly
surplus land extra land/space
quiet suburban towns small, calm suburbs
raising a family having a family life
earning a good wage get good money
easy access no problem getting to
cultural benefits museums, music, libraries, etc.
metropolises big cities
facilitate make easier
living conditions how people live in a city
make more sense in the modern
world more logical for the way things are
now
nonetheless regardless
strike a balance be moderate
mitigate lessen, control
growing urban populations more and more people living in cities
quality infrastructure good buildings, streets, plumbing, etc.
To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
Real Past IELTS Exam
Many today are
increasingly of the opinion that countries should be self-sufficient in their
food production and import as little as possible. Though I grant this is
unrealistic in certain countries, the economic implications are convincing.
In most countries,
imported foods are simply a luxury but this belies those nations where imports
ensure survival. Some of these countries include populous Southeast Asian
nations, and numerous Middle Eastern and African countries. The reasons range
from poorly developed infrastructure, little arable soil, and increased
vulnerability to natural disasters. Many Asian countries in particular, import
and stockpile basic foods such as rice for potential catastrophes. As agricultural
technology develops and allows for crops that require less water, their
desperation will lessen but it would be inhumane today to starve citizens in
these countries.
The above-mentioned
scenarios are exceptions; the majority of countries would be better served
through vibrant food cultivation and production industries. The economic impact
is twofold. First, these industries employ thousands of agricultural and
meat-packing workers. Secondly, these workers then contribute to the local
economy by buying goods and services. Replace them with international food
conglomerates and suddenly they are funding the GDP of another country. A good
counter-example to this would be in South Korea where the vast majority of
products are nationally produced and, in fact, were some of the initial,
primary sources of income for technology giants like Samsung and LG.
In conclusion, except
in extreme cases, countries should import fewer food products to better serve
their citizenry economically. There will always be a place for a limited range
of imports but it should not supersede local production.
increasingly of the opinion more and more think
self-sufficient can support themselves
food production growing food (meat and crops)
import as little as possible don’t bring in much food from other countries
grant will allow
unrealistic not really possible
implications results
convincing persuasive
simply a luxury only for enjoyment
belies falsely undermines
ensure survival allow them to live
populous lots of people
range from include
infrastructure buildings, roads, farms, etc.
little arable soil not much usable land for farming
vulnerability weak
natural disasters tsunamis, hurricanes, etc.
stockpile store up
potential catastrophes possible disasters
agricultural technology
develops farming methods advance
crops farm food
require need
desperation really need
lessen weaken
inhumane not human, cruel
starve citizens people die from hunger
above-mentioned scenarios just talked about situations
exceptions not generally true
vibrant food cultivation thriving food industry
twofold has two parts
meat-packing collecting meat
contribute give to
local economy national economy
services providing something you do for others
replace take the place of
international food
conglomerates big food companies
funding giving money
GDP gross domestic product
counter-example example showing the opposite
vast majority most of
nationally produced made by that country
initial, primary
sources first, main origin of
income money earned
technology giants Facebook, Google, Samsung, etc.
except in extreme cases besides the outliers
better serve make more sense for
citizenry economically people financially
a place an area for, should still exist
limited range not everywhere
supersede overtake, supplant
When cars and cyclists use the
same roads, there are often problems.
Why is this the case?
What are the solutions?
Real Past IELTS Exam
Many issues arise when
cyclists and motorists occupy the same streets. In my opinion, this is
typically the fault of the former and the solutions all relate to better urban
planning.
When cyclists and
motorists come into conflict on roads it is often because the cyclist has a
warped sense of priority. The general rule of thumb is that when cars have the
right of way, they possess the option of yielding to cyclists. Otherwise, since
cars travel much more quickly than bicycles, the cyclist must allow the car to
pass by first so that roads do not become congested. Unfortunately, many people
on bicycles attempt to travel as fast as cars without the maneuverability,
safety, or breaking ability of cars. The result is that cars and cyclists are
often at odds and wary of each other or, in extreme situations, collisions may
result.
The solutions to ease
these road conflicts are to better plan cities and wait for automobiles and
cyclists to adapt to each other. A good example of this would be some European
cities like Amsterdam where there is a large percentage of people traveling by
bicycle. Urban planners have created bike lanes and altered roadways to
mitigate potential conflicts. Over time, with clearer rules of engagement and
better urban planning, instances of road rage and disagreement have declined.
Adding bike lanes is only part of the solution; it is key for planners to
develop innovative solutions for roundabouts, traffic lights, and bridges that
allow for a seamless flow of traffic minus the veiled aggression that typically
defines the car and bicycle relationship.
In conclusion, cars
and bikes are in opposition because cyclists have overestimated their mode of
travel and these issues can be remedied through better urban planning.
Implementing these solutions is advisable since biking is such an environmental
boon.
issues arise problems happen
cyclists people who ride bikes
motorists occupy people driving cars share
fault their mistake
former first mentioned subject
relate have to do with
better urban planning the mapping out of a city
come into conflict disagree
warped sense of priority delusional and feel they should be in front
general rule of thumb normally
the right of way should go first when driving/walking
possess have
option choice
yielding allowing others to go
otherwise if not
allow the car to pass by
first let the car go in front
congested busy
maneuverability ability to move
safety not as dangerous
breaking ability how a bike/car stops
at odds in disagreement
wary worried about
extreme situations worst case scenario
collisions may result accidents might happen
ease mitigate
adapt change
urban planners people who plan cities
bike lanes spaces on the roads for bikes
altered roadways changing streets
mitigate potential conflicts lessen possible disagreements
over time in the future
clearer rules of
engagement easier to understand how to
proceed
better urban planning planning out cities better
road rage getting angry when driving
key very important
develop innovative
solutions have new remedies
roundabouts rotaries
traffic lights intersections with lights
seamless flow driving easily
minus taking away
veiled aggression barely hidden anger
typically defines usually is
in opposition fighting
overestimated thinking better than it really is
mode of travel way of traveling (bike, on foot, car, etc.)
remedied fixed
implementing putting into action
advisable should be done
environmental boon good for the Earth
What is the cause of this?
What are some possible solutions?
Real Past IELTS Exam
Many older people
today have difficulty acclimating to new technology. The main cause of this is
the novel nature of the computer revolution and the best solutions involve
education.
The elderly have
trouble catching up with new developments in technology because computers and
the internet are fundamentally novel. Computers require a skill set that is
completely foreign to individuals who did not grow up in the last 30 years. To
use a computer, one must be able to type, set up online accounts, remember
passwords, troubleshoot IT problems and navigate both the internet and various
internet-based apps. For those born into the internet era, this is all second
nature but for others the learning curve is often too steep. The simple process
of turning on a computer and locating programs using an unfamiliar interface
can be overwhelming and serves as the principle, initial barrier.
The best solutions for
this relate to education. Older people who are still working require special
training programs and patience from their employers and themselves. Competence
is likely given detailed instructions and enough time to practice. Moreover,
many retired older people want to spend more time with their children,
grandchildren and old friends but it can be difficult to travel, particularly
if they live far apart. Old people would be extremely motivated to make video
calls and stay in touch with loved ones with applications like Skype, Facetime
and Facebook Messenger. Through simple instructions from family members, it is
possible video-conferencing could become a routine task.
In conclusion, old
people today often cannot understand technology because it is a seismic shift
in perspective and the solutions involve patient training at work and home. In
this way, the benefits of technology can be extended to a generation that
missed out on them in their youth.
difficulty acclimating trouble getting used to
main cause primary source
novel nature new kind
computer revolution advent of computers, internet, digital tech
best solutions involve better remedies relate to
have trouble catching up are having a tough time learning
new developments in technology changes in technology
fundamentally novel basically new
require a skill set need new skills/abilities
completely foreign totally different
grow up be raised
type write on a computer
set up online accounts join sites and apps
remember passwords recall your login/password
troubleshoot IT problems fix issues with your computer
navigate find their way through
various internet-based apps applications like Instagram, Messenger, etc.
born into were raised during
second nature natural
learning curve is often too
steep too hard to pick up something new
simple process easy way to
locating programs find applications
unfamiliar interface confusing layout
overwhelming too much to handle
serves as the principle is the main
initial barrier first thing stopping people
relate to involve
require special training
programs need
assistance/guidance
competence ability to do something
detailed instructions clear guides
retired no longer working
particularly if they live far
apart especially if they don’t live near
each other
extremely motivated very interested in, really wanting to
stay in touch keep in contact
loved ones family, friends
simple instructions clear guides
video-conferencing talking with smartphones/cameras
routine task normal activity
seismic shift in
perspective huge change in how you
see the world
benefits of technology boons from technology
extended brought to
missed out didn’t have the chance to use
youth young people
To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
Real Past IELTS Exam/Test
It is becoming
increasingly likely that humanity will have to someday resort to the
colonisation of other planets. Though some suggest that we should divert
important resources towards research of other planets now, I believe it is more
pragmatic to focus on our current planet.
Advocates of increased
funding for interplanetary research hold that leaving Earth is inevitable. This
conclusion is underpinned by studies showing the potentially irreversible and
undoubtedly catastrophic effects of climate change. So far the habitats
devastated have belonged to remote polar regions and the fragile ecosystems of
already vulnerable animals. Climate scientists believe this degradation will
rapidly extend to the lives of ordinary people and result in a global scarcity
of natural resources and more intense natural disasters. If these predictions
are accurate then we need a backup plan involving the evacuation of Earth to
ensure human survival and prosperity for future generations.
However, the best
safeguard against the doomsday scenarios laid out above is to salvage the
planet we currently inhabit. It would require an immense amount of time, money,
and resources to colonise even the nearest neighbor to Earth, Mars. Instead of
directing those energies towards a fantastical plan to terraform an alien
planet, the easier option is to invest more in protecting Earth’s environment.
Governments could enact stricter regulations on individuals and private
companies to cut carbon emissions, while also funding clean energy initiatives.
By collectively signing the numerous international accords, policymakers could
strike a balance between economic development and environmental conservation.
These solutions are both more realistic in terms of the sacrifices entailed and
have a much better chance of actual success.
In conclusion,
investing in colonising other planets should not be a priority when there are
better solutions to current global problems. Interplanetary dreams should be
left to private companies or wealthy individuals who are passionate about
humanity’s future in space.
increasingly likely more and more possible it will happen
resort have to do
colonisation taking over/living on other planets
suggest propose
divert redirect
pragmatic useful
current right now
advocates supporters
interplanetary research learning about other planets
inevitable definitely going to happen
underpinned sourced, the foundation of
potentially irreversible maybe can’t be fixed
undoubtedly catastrophic
effects definitely really bad impact
climate change global warming
so far to this point
habitats devastated homes hurt
belonged to were part of
remote polar regions far away cold places like Antarctica
fragile ecosystems delivate habitats
vulnerable easily hurt, weak
degradation getting worse
rapidly extend quickly move to
ordinary people everyday citizens
result in the effect will be
global scarcity of natural
resources running out of oil,
gas, trees, water, etc.
intense natural disasters powerful hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.
backup plan another option just in case
evacuation escape from
ensure human survival safeguard humanity’s future
prosperity growth
future generations people in the future
best safeguard against top way to protect
doomsday scenarios laid out worst case situations explained before
salvage save what is left of
currently inhabit where we live now
require need
immense amount a lot of
nearest neighbor closest planet
directing those energies focusing on
fantastical plan delusional ideas
terraform make more like Earth
easier option feasible solution
invest more put more money into
enact stricter regulations pass tougher laws
cut carbon emissions reduce reliance on fossil fuels
funding clean energy
initiatives giving money for wind,
solar, etc.
collectively signing the
numerous international accords all
together agree on the same laws/regulations
policymakers politicians
strike a balance find the middle ground
economic development jobs, companies doing well
environmental conservation saving the environment
realistic possible, may actually happen
sacrifices entailed what must be given up
actual success could really work
investing putting money into
priority more important
interplanetary dreams desire to go to other planets
wealthy individuals rich people
passionate really caring about
Research into medical
treatments are essential to improve health and fight disease.
Who do you think should fund
this research: individuals, private companies or governments?
Real Past IELTS Exam
It is indisputably
important for researchers to develop new medical treatments in the battle
against poor health and disease. In my opinion, this research should be funded
primarily by governments and well-regulated private companies.
Governments are able
to concentrate solely on public interests. They are indebted to tax-payers and
have a responsibility to direct that money back into various services
benefitting the nation at large. A good example of the important role
governments play in medical services and treatments is the theory of disease
originated by Louis Pasteur while working for the publicly funded University of
Lille in France. It is unlikely he would have had the time or resources to
conduct his experiments on his own and questionable if a private company would
have recognised the commercial value of his work. Government funding functions
much the same way today to fund medical projects without a clear path to
profits but enormous importance for public health.
However, governments
are notoriously slow-moving, under-funded and less innovative than private
corporations. Companies are motivated to generate a profit, which pushes them
to compete, innovate, and pay for the best minds in the field. Evidence for
this is numerous and includes advances in surgical procedures, stem cell
therapy, nutrition, pharmaceuticals, cancer research, and emergency medicine.
Government funded projects and hospitals have a tendency to become complacent
while private companies must innovate to excel. The risk, naturally, is that
these companies will charge exorbitant costs and reserve the best medicine for
select, wealthy clientele. Government regulation is therefore needed to keep
these corporations in check.
In conclusion, the
government plays a key role in medical research both as a creative body and a
regulator. Private companies should not be vilified for their exploitation of
health problems but they should be kept within clear limits.
indisputably important definitely crucial
new medical treatments important medicine
battle fight
funded primarily by given money from
well-regulated private
companies corporations limited by
laws
concentrate solely focus only
public interests what citizens all need
indebted owing money to
tax-payers citizens
direct focus towards
back into returned to
benefitting for the good of
nation at large the whole country
important role crucial part
play (play a role is a collocation meaning to ‘have a role’)
medical services and treatments medicine to help/treat sicknesses and diseases
originated comes from
Louis Pasteur French scientist who created a theory of germs and made
many important discoveries
publicly funded money from the government
unlikely probably won’t happen
conduct his experiments do his experiments/research
questionable dubious
recognised know about, realised
commercial value can make a profit
functions much the same way
today works in the same method
without a clear path to profits no way to make money
enormous importance for public
health a lot of value for
everyone
notoriously slow-moving famously not fast
under-funded not enough money
innovative new ideas and products/services
generate a profit make money
pushes them to compete motivates rivalry
innovate revolutionise
best minds in the field smartest people in a subject
evidence support
numerous lots of
advances progress
surgical procedures operations
stem cell therapy a type of regenerative medicine
nutrition eating healthy
pharmaceuticals prescribed drugs
cancer research study into cancer
emergency medicine medicine for accidents or fast-acting medicine
tendency inclination
complacent settled, lazy
excel do really well
naturally organically
charge exorbitant costs must pay a lot of money
reserve hold for
select chosen (adjective)
wealthy clientele people with a lot of money
keep these corporations in
check control companies
plays a key role has a lot to do with
creative body institutions that think of ideas
regulator controller
vilified turned to villains
exploitation take advantage of
kept within clear limits not allowed complete freedom
Even though doctors advise old
people to get more exercise, many old people do not get enough.
What are the reasons for this?
What are some possible solutions
for this?
Real Past IELTS Exam
Many elderly people
today, despite recommendations from doctors, do not get adequate exercise. I
believe this is largely related to their upbringing and simple psychology,
while the best solutions augment existing remedies.
The most basic sources
of this problem are historical and psychological. Many old people today grew up
in a period when exercise was not ubiquitous. Gyms in schools and as private
businesses are a more recent development so they have not become ingrained
habits for past generations. Moreover, men may have experience playing a sport
but female athletics were historically underfunded and even banned in many
nations, which has an effect on elderly women in particular. This history
intermingles with normal human psychology. People are naturally embarrassed to
stand out or appear foolish in public. Feeling self-conscious is an initial
barrier that prevents many elderly from taking up a new sport or going to the
gym for the first time.
The most efficacious
solutions involve better accommodating the elderly. One way to do this would be
to build more parks for exercise. In some East Asian countries such as Vietnam
and South Korea, they have been building both small and large, rural and urban
parks with basic exercise equipment for decades. They are easy to use, common
and the elderly have become acclimated to them. Many more elderly would
exercise if there was an expansion and replication of these successful
policies. Another related fix would be to build more fitness centres. This may
not have a huge impact at the moment, because gym members tend to be younger,
but as a new generation of old people rises up, these centres will become more
important and allow governments to take a proactive, rather than reactive,
approach.
In conclusion, there
are both historic and fundamentally human reasons for why old people do not
exercise today. In my opinion, the solutions are not novel but would clearly
lead to improved health for the elderly.
elderly people old people
despite recommendations from
doctors regardless of what
doctor’s advise
adequate enough
largely mostly
upbringing how they are raised
simple psychology basic human nature
augment existing remedies extend already present solutions
most basic sources foundation of
historical from history
grew up raised
period time in the past
ubiquitous common
more recent development happened in the last several decades
ingrained habits fixed habits/routines
past generations old people
female athletics women doing sports
underfunded not enough money for
banned not allowed
in particular especially
intermingles combines with
naturally embarrassed unsurprisingly ashamed
stand out noticeable, conspicuous
appear foolish in public look silly in front of people
feeling self-conscious know others are watching them
initial barrier stops them at the beginning
prevents stops
taking up starting to do
for the first time initially
efficacious solutions effection remedies
better accommodating make them more comfortable
one way to do this would be a possible method is
rural countryside
urban cities
basic exercise equipment simple machines for working out
decades many years
common ubiquitous
acclimated getting used to
expansion more and more
replication repeated
successful policies ideas that worked
related fix similiar remedy
fitness centres gyms
huge impact large effect
tend usually
rises up ascend
proactive not reacting, acting first
reactive acting in response
approach method
fundamentally human reasons related to human nature
novel new
clearly lead to improved health definitely result in better health
Discuss both sides and give
your own opinion.
Real Past IELTS Exam
Many educational
reformers today incline towards a narrower curriculum for students 15 and
older. In my opinion, while this is part of a decidedly modern movement for
early specialisation, a wide range of knowledge serves as a basis for more
well-adjusted adults.
Limiting subjects from
the age of 15 onwards can allow for greater focus. It is not uncommon for many
children to choose one musical instrument or participate in a single sport from
the beginning of grade school. The rationale is that more time spent in one
domain inevitably leads to mastery and this is supported by research into the
importance of practice for elite performers. There are many famous examples of
individuals who focused from their teenage years onwards and found success such
as The Beatles’ band members with music and Steve Jobs with computer
technology. Fewer subjects after age 15 is therefore one way to safeguard a
child’s future.
However, the famous
examples above are belied by the bulk of research that shows, for the majority
of individuals, a wide range of skills and interests is a better predictor of
future success. Studies have overwhelmingly shown that varied skills allow for
increased creativity and a more even temperament. The average high school
student must study obviously useful subjects such as math and various
disciplines of science but also take music, art, home economics, and choose
their own electives. They may never become professional musicians but opening
up that side of their brain can help them be more creative in another field and
feel their education is well-rounded. Without dabbling in these allegedly
useless subjects they might feel harnessed to a single career and purpose,
unable to exercise autonomy over their own life.
In conclusion,
studying a range of subjects after the age of 15 leads to better results in
general. A complete syllabus furnishes happier individual citizens and
contributes to a richer overall society.
educational reformers people who want to make changes to schools
incline towards are in favour of
narrower curriculum fewer subjects
decidedly modern movement clearly new thinking about
early specialisation focusing on one/a few subjects from a young age
wide range lots of different, variety
serves as a basis a foundation for
well-adjusted adults normal people
limiting narrowing
onwards from then to the future
greater focus more emphasis
It is not uncommon for it is common for
grade school from grades 1 -12
rationale reason for
one domain one subject/area
inevitably leads to mastery always will result in becoming an expert
elite performers experts, masters
found success be successful
The Beatles’ band members Paul, John, George, and Ringo
safeguard guarantee
belied undermined
bulk most of
majority most of
better predictor shows more accurate predictions/estimates
overwhelmingly shown clearly evidenced
increased creativity can think of more ideas
more even temperament not too emotional
obviously useful subjects clearly practical areas of study
various disciplines of science biology, physics, chemistry, etc.
home economics learning about cooking, sewing, etc.
electives subjects you can choose
opening up making possible
side of their brain part of their mind
field subject/occupation
well-rounded overall balanced
dabbling playing around with
allegedly useless subjects supposedly not important
harnessed held in check
purpose reason
exercise autonomy have freedom/control
leads to better results nets better outcomes
in general overall
complete syllabus furnishes varied subjects fosters
contributes adds to
richer overall society better society
Comments
Post a Comment