BÀI MẪU WRITING – TASK 2
Some people regard video games as harmless fun, or even as a useful educational tool. Others, however, believe that videos games are having an adverse effect on the people who play them. In your opinion, do the drawbacks of video games outweigh the benefits?
Many people, and children in particular, enjoy playing computer games. While I accept that these games can sometimes have a positive effect on the user, I believe that they are more likely to have a harmful impact.
On the one hand, video games can be both entertaining and educational. Users, or gamers, are transported into virtual worlds which are often more exciting and engaging than real-life pastimes. From an educational perspective, these games encourage imagination and creativity, as well as concentration, logical thinking and problem solving, all of which are useful skills outside the game context. Furthermore, it has been shown that computer simulation games can improve users’ motor skills and help to prepare them for real-world tasks, such as flying a plane.
However, I would argue that these benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks. Games can be highly addictive because users are constantly given scores, new targets and frequent rewards to keep them playing. Many children now spend hours each day trying to progress through the levels of a game or to get a higher score than their friends. This type of addiction can have effects ranging from lack of sleep to problems at school, when homework is sacrificed for a few more hours on the computer or console. The rise in obesity in recent years has also been linked in part to the sedentary lifestyle and lack of exercise that often accompany game addiction.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the potential dangers of video games are more significant than the possible benefits.
Explain some of the ways in which humans are damaging the environment. What can governments do to address these problems? What can individual people do?
Humans are responsible for a variety of environmental problems, but we can also take steps to reduce the damage that we are causing to the planet. This essay will discuss environmental problems and the measures that governments and individuals can take to address these problems.
Two of the biggest threats to the environment are air pollution and waste. Gas emissions from factories and exhaust fumes from vehicles lead to global warming, which may have a devastating effect on the planet in the future. As the human population increases, we are also producing ever greater quantities of waste, which contaminates the earth and pollutes rivers and oceans.
Governments could certainly make more effort to reduce air pollution. They could introduce laws to limit emissions from factories or to force companies to use renewable energy from solar, wind or water power. They could also impose ‘green taxes’ on drivers and airline companies. In this way, people would be encouraged to use public transport and to take fewer flights abroad, therefore reducing emissions.
Individuals should also take responsibility for the impact they have on the environment. They can take public transport rather than driving, choose products with less packaging, and recycle as much as possible. Most supermarkets now provide reusable bags for shoppers as well as ‘banks’ for recycling glass, plastic and paper in their car parks. By reusing and recycling, we can help to reduce waste.
In conclusion, both national governments and individuals must play their part in looking after the environment.
Universities should accept equal numbers of male and female students in every subject. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
In my opinion, men and women should have the same educational opportunities. However, I do not agree with the idea of accepting equal proportions of each gender in every university subject.
Having the same number of men and women on all degree courses is simply unrealistic. Student numbers on any course depend on the applications that the institution receives. If a university decided to fill courses with equal numbers of males and females, it would need enough applicants of each gender. In reality, many courses are more popular with one gender than the other, and it would not be practical to aim for equal proportions. For example, nursing courses tend to attract more female applicants, and it would be difficult to fill these courses if fifty per cent of the places needed to go to males.
Apart from the practical concerns expressed above, I also believe that it would be unfair to base admission to university courses on gender. Universities should continue to select the best candidates for each course according to their qualifications. In this way, both men and women have the same opportunities, and applicants know that they will be successful if they work hard to achieve good grades at school. If a female student is the best candidate for a place on a course, it would be wrong to reject her in favour of a male student with lower grades or fewer qualifications.
In conclusion, the selection of university students should be based on merit, and it would be both impractical and unfair to change to a selection procedure based on gender.
Economic progress is often used to measure a country’s success. However, some people believe that other factors are more important. What other factors should also be considered when measuring a country's success? Do you think one factor is more important than others?
The relative success of different countries is usually defined in economic terms. There are several other factors, apart from the economy, that could be used to assess a country, and in my opinion education is the most important of all.
Standards of education, health and individual human rights should certainly be considered when measuring a country’s status. A good education system is vital for the development of any nation, with schools, colleges and universities bearing the responsibility for the quality of future generations of workers. Healthcare provision is also an indicator of the standard of living within a country, and this can be measured by looking at average life expectancy rates or availability of medical services. Finally, human rights and levels of equality could be taken into account. For example, a country in which women do not have the same opportunities as men might be considered less successful than a country with better gender equality.
In my view, a country’s education system should be seen as the most important indicator of its success and level of development. This is because education has a considerable effect on the other two factors mentioned above. It affects people’s health in the sense that doctors and nurses need to be trained, and scientists need to be educated to the highest levels before they can carry out medical research. It also affects the economy in the sense that a well-educated workforce will allow a variety of companies and industries to flourish, leading to trade with other countries, and increased wealth.
In conclusion, nations can be assessed and compared in a variety of ways, but I would argue that the standard of a country's education system is the best measure of its success.
Nowadays the way many people interact with each other has changed because of technology.
In what ways has technology affected the types of relationships that people make? Has this been a positive or negative development?
It is true that new technologies have had an influence on communication between people. Technology has affected relationships in various ways, and in my opinion there are both positive and negative effects.
Technology has had an impact on relationships in business, education and social life. Firstly, telephones and the Internet allow business people in different countries to interact without ever meeting each other. Secondly, services like Skype create new possibilities for relationships between students and teachers. For example, a student can now take video lessons with a teacher in a different city or country. Finally, many people use social networks, like Facebook, to make new friends and find people who share common interests, and they interact through their computers rather than face to face.
On the one hand, these developments can be extremely positive. Cooperation between people in different countries was much more difficult when communication was limited to written letters or telegrams. Nowadays, interactions by email, phone or video are almost as good as face-to-face meetings, and many of us benefit from these interactions, either in work or social contexts. On the other hand, the availability of new communication technologies can also have the result of isolating people and discouraging real interaction. For example, many young people choose to make friends online rather than mixing with their peers in the real world, and these ‘virtual’ relationships are a poor substitute for real friendships.
In conclusion, technology has certainly revolutionised communication between people, but not all of the outcomes of this revolution have been positive.
Some people think that museums should be enjoyable places to entertain people, while others believe that the purpose of museums is to educate.
Discuss both views and give you own opinion.
People have different views about the role and function of museums. In my opinion, museums can and should be both entertaining and educational.
On the one hand, it can be argued that the main role of a museum is to entertain. Museums are tourist attractions, and their aim is to exhibit a collection of interesting objects that many people will want to see. The average visitor may become bored if he or she has to read or listen to too much educational content, so museums often put more of an emphasis on enjoyment rather than learning. This type of museum is designed to be visually spectacular, and may have interactive activities or even games as part of its exhibitions.
On the other hand, some people argue that museums should focus on education. The aim of any exhibition should be to teach visitors something that they did not previously know. Usually this means that the history behind the museum’s exhibits needs to be explained, and this can be done in various ways. Some museums employ professional guides to talk to their visitors, while other museums offer headsets so that visitors can listen to detailed commentary about the exhibition. In this way, museums can play an important role in teaching people about history, culture, science and many other aspects of life.
In conclusion, it seems to me that a good museum should be able to offer an interesting, enjoyable and educational experience so that people can have fun and learn something at the same time.
Some people believe that hobbies need to be difficult to be enjoyable.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some hobbies are relatively easy, while others present more of a challenge. Personally, I believe that both types of hobby can be fun, and I therefore disagree with the statement that hobbies need to be difficult in order to be enjoyable.
On the one hand, many people enjoy easy hobbies. One example of an activity that is easy for most people is swimming. This hobby requires very little equipment, it is simple to learn, and it is inexpensive. I remember learning to swim at my local swimming pool when I was a child, and it never felt like a demanding or challenging experience. Another hobby that I find easy and fun is photography. In my opinion, anyone can take interesting pictures without knowing too much about the technicalities of operating a camera. Despite being straightforward, taking photos is a satisfying activity.
On the other hand, difficult hobbies can sometimes be more exciting. If an activity is more challenging, we might feel a greater sense of satisfaction when we manage to do it successfully. For example, film editing is a hobby that requires a high level of knowledge and expertise. In my case, it took me around two years before I became competent at this activity, but now I enjoy it much more than I did when I started. I believe that many hobbies give us more pleasure when we reach a higher level of performance because the results are better and the feeling of achievement is greater.
In conclusion, simple hobbies can be fun and relaxing, but difficult hobbies can be equally pleasurable for different reasons.
Some people believe that studying at university or college is the best route to a successful career, while others believe that it is better to get a job straight after school.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
When they finish school, teenagers face the dilemma of whether to get a job or continue their education. While there are some benefits to getting a job straight after school, I would argue that it is better to go to college or university.
The option to start work straight after school is attractive for several reasons. Many young people want to start earning money as soon as possible. In this way, they can become independent, and they will be able to afford their own house or start a family. In terms of their career, young people who decide to find work, rather than continue their studies, may progress more quickly. They will have the chance to gain real experience and learn practical skills related to their chosen profession. This may lead to promotions and a successful career.
On the other hand, I believe that it is more beneficial for students to continue their studies. Firstly, academic qualifications are required in many professions. For example, it is impossible to become a doctor, teacher or lawyer without having the relevant degree. As a result, university graduates have access to more and better job opportunities, and they tend to earn higher salaries than those with fewer qualifications. Secondly, the job market is becoming increasingly competitive, and sometimes there are hundreds of applicants for one position in a company. Young people who do not have qualifications from a university or college will not be able to compete.
For the reasons mentioned above, it seems to me that students are more likely to be successful in their careers if they continue their studies beyond school level.
There are many different types of music in the world today. Why do we need music? Is the traditional music of a country more important than the international music that is heard everywhere nowadays?
It is true that a rich variety of musical styles can be found around the world. Music is a vital part of all human cultures for a range of reasons, and I would argue that traditional music is more important than modern, international music.
Music is something that accompanies all of us throughout our lives. As children, we are taught songs by our parents and teachers as a means of learning language, or simply as a form of enjoyment. Children delight in singing with others, and it would appear that the act of singing in a group creates a connection between participants, regardless of their age. Later in life, people’s musical preferences develop, and we come to see our favourite songs as part of our life stories. Music both expresses and arouses emotions in a way that words alone cannot. In short, it is difficult to imagine life without it.
In my opinion, traditional music should be valued over the international music that has become so popular. International pop music is often catchy and fun, but it is essentially a commercial product that is marketed and sold by business people. Traditional music, by contrast, expresses the culture, customs and history of a country. Traditional styles, such as ...(example)..., connect us to the past and form part of our cultural identity. It would be a real pity if pop music became so predominant that these national styles disappeared.
In conclusion, music is a necessary part of human existence, and I believe that traditional music should be given more importance than international music.
We cannot help everyone in the world that needs help, so we should only be concerned with our own communities and countries.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Some people believe that we should not help people in other countries as long as there are problems in our own society. I disagree with this view because I believe that we should try to help as many people as possible.
On the one hand, I accept that it is important to help our neighbours and fellow citizens. In most communities there are people who are impoverished or disadvantaged in some way. It is possible to find homeless people, for example, in even the wealthiest of cities, and for those who are concerned about this problem, there are usually opportunities to volunteer time or give money to support these people. In the UK, people can help in a variety of ways, from donating clothing to serving free food in a soup kitchen. As the problems are on our doorstep, and there are obvious ways to help, I can understand why some people feel that we should prioritise local charity.
At the same time, I believe that we have an obligation to help those who live beyond our national borders. In some countries the problems that people face are much more serious than those in our own communities, and it is often even easier to help. For example, when children are dying from curable diseases in African countries, governments and individuals in richer countries can save lives simply by paying for vaccines that already exist. A small donation to an international charity might have a much greater impact than helping in our local area.
In conclusion, it is true that we cannot help everyone, but in my opinion national boundaries should not stop us from helping those who are in need.
Many people decide on a career path early in their lives and keep to it. This, they argue, leads to a more satisfying working life.
To what extent do you agree with this view?
What other things can people do in order to have a satisfying working life?
It is true that some people know from an early age what career they want to pursue, and they are happy to spend the rest of their lives in the same profession. While I accept that this may suit many people, I believe that others enjoy changing careers or seeking job satisfaction in different ways.
On the one hand, having a defined career path can certainly lead to a satisfying working life. Many people decide as young children what they want to do as adults, and it gives them a great sense of satisfaction to work towards their goals and gradually achieve them. For example, many children dream of becoming doctors, but to realise this ambition they need to gain the relevant qualifications and undertake years of training. In my experience, very few people who have qualified as doctors choose to change career because they find their work so rewarding, and because they have invested so much time and effort to reach their goal.
On the other hand, people find happiness in their working lives in different ways. Firstly, not everyone dreams of doing a particular job, and it can be equally rewarding to try a variety of professions; starting out on a completely new career path can be a reinvigorating experience. Secondly, some people see their jobs as simply a means of earning money, and they are happy if their salary is high enough to allow them to enjoy life outside work. Finally, job satisfaction is often the result of working conditions, rather than the career itself. For example, a positive working atmosphere, enthusiastic colleagues, and an inspirational boss can make working life much more satisfying, regardless of the profession.
In conclusion, it can certainly be satisfying to pursue a particular career for the whole of one’s life, but this is by no means the only route to fulfilment.
Some people think that all university students should study whatever they like. Others believe that they should only be allowed to study subjects that will be useful in the future, such as those related to science and technology.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
People have different views about how much choice students should have with regard to what they can study at university. While some argue that it would be better for students to be forced into certain key subject areas, I believe that everyone should be able to study the course of their choice.
There are various reasons why people believe that universities should only offer subjects that will be useful in the future. They may assert that university courses like medicine, engineering and information technology are more likely to be beneficial than certain art degrees. From a personal perspective, it can be argued that these courses provide more job opportunities, career progression, better salaries, and therefore an improved quality of life for students who take them. On the societal level, by forcing people to choose particular university subjects, governments can ensure that any knowledge and skill gaps in the economy are covered. Finally, a focus on technology in higher education could lead to new inventions, economic growth, and greater future prosperity.
In spite of these arguments, I believe that university students should be free to choose their preferred areas of study. In my opinion, society will benefit more if our students are passionate about what they are learning. Besides, nobody can really predict which areas of knowledge will be most useful to society in the future, and it may be that employers begin to value creative thinking skills above practical or technical skills. If this were the case, perhaps we would need more students of art, history and philosophy than of science or technology.
In conclusion, although it might seem sensible for universities to focus only on the most useful subjects, I personally prefer the current system in which people have the right to study whatever they like.
Some people who have been in prison become good citizens later, and it is often argued that these are the best people to talk to teenagers about the dangers of committing a crime.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is true that ex-prisoners can become normal, productive members of society. I completely agree with the idea that allowing such people to speak to teenagers about their experiences is the best way to discourage them from breaking the law.
In my opinion, teenagers are more likely to accept advice from someone who can speak from experience. Reformed offenders can tell young people about how they became involved in crime, the dangers of a criminal lifestyle, and what life in prison is really like. They can also dispel any ideas that teenagers may have about criminals leading glamorous lives. While adolescents are often indifferent to the guidance given by older people, I imagine that most of them would be extremely keen to hear the stories of an ex-offender. The vivid and perhaps shocking nature of these stories is likely to have a powerful impact.
The alternatives to using reformed criminals to educate teenagers about crime would be much less effective. One option would be for police officers to visit schools and talk to young people. This could be useful in terms of informing teens about what happens to lawbreakers when they are caught, but young people are often reluctant to take advice from figures of authority. A second option would be for school teachers to speak to their students about crime, but I doubt that students would see teachers as credible sources of information about this topic. Finally, educational films might be informative, but there would be no opportunity for young people to interact and ask questions.
In conclusion, I fully support the view that people who have turned their lives around after serving a prison sentence could help to deter teenagers from committing crimes.
In the developed world, average life expectancy is increasing. What problems will this cause for individuals and society? Suggest some measures that could be taken to reduce the impact of ageing populations.
It is true that people in industrialised nations can expect to live longer than ever before. Although there will undoubtedly be some negative consequences of this trend, societies can take steps to mitigate these potential problems.
As people live longer and the populations of developed countries grow older, several related problems can be anticipated. The main issue is that there will obviously be more people of retirement age who will be eligible to receive a pension. The proportion of younger, working adults will be smaller, and governments will therefore receive less money in taxes in relation to the size of the population. In other words, an ageing population will mean a greater tax burden for working adults. Further pressures will include a rise in the demand for healthcare, and the fact young adults will increasingly have to look after their elderly relatives.
There are several actions that governments could take to solve the problems described above. Firstly, a simple solution would be to increase the retirement age for working adults, perhaps from 65 to 70. Nowadays, people of this age tend to be healthy enough to continue a productive working life. A second measure would be for governments to encourage immigration in order to increase the number of working adults who pay taxes. Finally, money from national budgets will need to be taken from other areas and spent on vital healthcare, accommodation and transport facilities for the rising numbers of older citizens.
In conclusion, various measures can be taken to tackle the problems that are certain to arise as the populations of countries grow older.
Several languages are in danger of extinction because they are spoken by very small numbers of people. Some people say that governments should spend public money on saving these languages, while others believe that would be a waste of money.
Discuss both these views and give your opinion.
It is true that some minority languages may disappear in the near future. Although it can be argued that governments could save money by allowing this to happen, I believe that these languages should be protected and preserved.
There are several reasons why saving minority languages could be seen as a waste of money. Firstly, if a language is only spoken by a small number of people, expensive education programmes will be needed to make sure that more people learn it, and the state will have to pay for facilities, teachers and marketing. This money might be better spent on other public services. Secondly, it would be much cheaper and more efficient for countries to have just one language. Governments could cut all kinds of costs related to communicating with each minority group.
Despite the above arguments, I believe that governments should try to preserve languages that are less widely spoken. A language is much more than simply a means of communication; it has a vital connection with the cultural identity of the people who speak it. If a language disappears, a whole way of life will disappear with it, and we will lose the rich cultural diversity that makes societies more interesting. By spending money to protect minority languages, governments can also preserve traditions, customs and behaviours that are part of a country’s history.
In conclusion, it may save money in the short term if we allow minority languages to disappear, but in the long term this would have an extremely negative impact on our cultural heritage.
Some people think that governments should give financial support to creative artists such as painters and musicians. Others believe that creative artists should be funded by alternative sources. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
People have different views about the funding of creative artists. While some people disagree with the idea of government support for artists, I believe that money for art projects should come from both governments and other sources.
Some art projects definitely require help from the state. In the UK, there are many works of art in public spaces, such as streets or squares in city centres. In Liverpool, for example, there are several new statues and sculptures in the docks area of the city, which has been redeveloped recently. These artworks represent culture, heritage and history. They serve to educate people about the city, and act as landmarks or talking points for visitors and tourists. Governments and local councils should pay creative artists to produce this kind of art, because without their funding our cities would be much less interesting and attractive.
On the other hand, I can understand the arguments against government funding for art. The main reason for this view is that governments have more important concerns. For example, state budgets need to be spent on education, healthcare, infrastructure and security, among other areas. These public services are vital for a country to function properly, whereas the work of creative artists, even in public places, is a luxury. Another reason for this opinion is that artists do a job like any other professional, and they should therefore earn their own money by selling their work.
In conclusion, there are good reasons why artists should rely on alternative sources of financial support, but in my opinion government help is sometimes necessary.
It is sometimes said that a high salary is the most important factor in choosing a job. Do you agree?
It is, of course, important for people to earn a sufficiently high salary to support their lifestyle. This does not mean, however, that the salary is the only point to be taken into consideration when choosing a job. Indeed, I would argue that there are a number of other factors that are equally significant.
The first point to consider is why it may be a mistake to place too much emphasis on the salary. One reason why this is so is that you may select a job that is well-paid but ultimately unsatisfying. In this case, you may spend 8 hours a day being unhappy. Something else to be taken into account is that highly-paid jobs tend to be stressful and involve long working hours. For instance, many doctors have a 60 hour working week and they often suffer from burn out early in their careers and wish they had chosen a less stressful profession.
The other point to be taken into account is how other factors may matter more than the salary when deciding on a job. Indeed, most people would accept that the work environment is key to job satisfaction. If you are working alongside people you like and the atmosphere in the office is positive, you are much more likely to be satisfied in your work. Likewise, it is also critical that you actually enjoy what you do. For example, someone who is artistic is much more likely to be happy working for a low salary teaching art than earning a fortune as a merchant banker.
In conclusion, I would say that the salary should be only one consideration in choosing a job and that other factors such as job satisfaction and work environment are just as important.
Consumers are faced with increasing numbers of advertisements from competing companies. To what extent do you think are consumers influenced by advertisements? What measures can be taken to protect them?
In today’s material world, we are inundated with various forms of advertising. In my view, this can be dangerous as it encourages us to spend without thinking and young people, in particular, need some protection from it.
The first point to make is that advertising does make us spend money we do not need to. There are nowadays so many different ways companies promote their products and services, ranging from television commercials to simple flyers that we cannot escape it. If, for example, you watch a football match on television, you will see the logos of the tournament sponsors. Likewise, if you watch the latest blockbuster movie, very probably you will see a product placed in the film by some advertising agency. The volume of this advertising means that we, as consumers, tend to be profoundly influenced by it and buy without thinking.
It is not easy to decide how to regulate advertising. Clearly, governments ought to restrict advertisements for harmful products such as alcohol and tobacco. They do not have the power, however, to control other forms of advertising. This means we need to use our common sense when we go to the shops, and ask ourselves whether we really need to make that purchase. Parents should, however, ensure that young people are protected from too much exposure to advertising. This can mean simply explaining that it is not in fact necessary to buy the newest Xbox, or simply turning the television off.
My conclusion is that while we cannot escape advertising or its effects in the modern world, children should be encouraged not to pay too much attention to it.
Many people want their country to host an international sporting event. Others believe that international sporting events bring more problems than benefits. Discuss both views and state your opinion.
There is frequently great competition to host international sporting events. Not everyone, however, believes that the price involved in hosting such events is worthwhile. For me, this is an understandable point of view and perhaps not every country should try and stage international sporting events.
The major argument against hosting international sporting events is financial. Typically, it can cost several million pounds to build the arenas and modernise the infrastructure so that it can cater for the athletes and the spectators. This money, it is argued, would be better spent on welfare and education programmes that provide direct support for the population. Indeed, some governments have incurred so much debt through hosting the Olympic Games that they have had to reduce spending on other social programmes.
While there is some merit in that argument, hosting sporting events does also bring significant benefits. First among these is the honour and prestige it brings to the host country because that country will be the centre of the sporting world for the duration of the event. For many people this is beyond any price. More than that, if the authorities plan carefully, they can use the occasion of the sporting event to help finance public works that benefit the whole population in the long term. For example, the village for the athletes can be transformed into public housing and the various stadia can be used to build a sporting legacy for future generations.
My own view is that it is an honour for a country to host a major sporting event. However, if a government wishes to bid for an international event to be staged in its country, it should ensure it has sufficient funds to maintain spending on other projects.
We are becoming increasingly dependent on computer technology. It is used in business, crime detection and even to fly planes. What will it be used for in future? Is this dependence on technology a good thing or should we be suspicious of its benefits?
As we move into the twenty-first century, it is clear to see that we have become more and more dependent on computers and information technology. This technology now reaches into almost every area of our lives and it is easy to predict that this phenomenon is only going to grow. My personal belief is that this presents a variety of dangers.
It is highly likely that in the future there will be comparatively few aspects of our lives that will not be influenced by computer technology. The probability is that it will control more and more forms of communication, transforming fields such as education and business when video-conferencing platforms become more stable. It might even affect romance with more people forming relationships online.
While there may be benefits to this technological revolution, there are also a number of potential dangers. Perhaps the most serious of these would be that if people rely on computers too much for communication, they could in fact begin to communicate less well. For example, if every member of a family had their own computer screen and smart phone, they might speak less and less often to one another and simply look at a screen. This would be serious because our ability to communicate is an essential part of our humanity.
My conclusion is that the growth of computer technology is inevitable, but that this may not be entirely positive. Just one area in which it is possible to foresee dangers is communication, and if we are going to ensure that computers do not become a negative influence, we need to think carefully how we use them.
In recent years, there has been a considerable rise in crimes committed by young people in cities.
What has caused this? What solutions can you suggest?
The rise of crime among young people is an urgent problem in many cities that needs to be addressed. However, in order to find a solution, it is first of all necessary to understand what has led to this happening. In this essay, I first of all examine the reasons for the rise in youth crime, then I suggest how this problem may be resolved.
Perhaps the principal cause of this rise in youth crime is the increased use of drugs and alcohol among young people. Many cities suffer from the phenomenon of binge drinking by teenagers who lose control under the influence of alcohol and commit crimes. For instance, it is a common sight on the streets of Britain to see fights breaking out outside pubs and clubs. Similarly, there is a clear connection between drug abuse among the young and crime. It is still unfortunately the case that young people frequently see drugs as cool and become addicted. It is a common occurrence for these addicts to resort to petty theft in order to pay for their habit.
There are a variety of potential ways of combatting this problem. One possibility that is sometimes suggested is a much stricter system of penalties and punishments to deter young people from a life of crime. That might work, but it would also be sensible to improve the system of education so that young people were better informed about the dangers of drugs and alcohol. This should have the effect of dealing with the issues that cause youth crime in the first place.
In conclusion, alcohol and drug abuse are among the primary reasons for the rise in young offenders and if the authorities wish to tackle youth crime, one approach would be to educate the young more effectively.
Differences between countries become less evident each year. Nowadays, all over the world people share the same fashions, advertising, brands, eating habits and TV channels. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of this?
It is undoubtedly the case that the world today has become a global village. One of the effects of this is that increasingly people in all corners of the world are exposed to similar services and products and adopt similar habits. My view is that this is largely a beneficial process and in this essay I will explain why.
The first point to make is that there are some downsides to this process of cultural globalisation, but these are relatively minor. The most significant of these disadvantages is that it can weaken national culture and traditions. For example, if people watch films and television programmes produced in the United States, sometimes they adopt aspects of the lifestyle of the American characters they see on television. Typically, however, this only affects minor details such as clothing and does not seriously threaten national identity.
When we turn to the other side of the argument, there are two major points to make in favour of this process. The first of these is that the more we share habits, products and services, the better we understand each other and this reduces prejudice against other nations. The other point relates to modernity. It is a sign of progress in a society that people no longer are restricted to brands and advertisements from their own society but are able to access more international goods. If, for example, there were unable to drink Coca Cola or wear Nike, then that would mean their society was not part of the international community.
In conclusion, I understand the point of view of people who worry about cultural globalisation because it is a threat to national traditions. However, this is outweighed by its positive impact on international understanding and the fact that it represents progress within a society.
In cities and towns all over the world the high volume of traffic is a problem. What are the causes of this and what actions can be taken to solve this problem?
It is undoubtedly the case that urban areas around the world increasingly suffer from congestion. In this essay, I examine the reasons for this trend and suggest some practical policies the authorities could implement to reduce the level of traffic in our cities.
The first step is to understand why traffic has increased in towns and cities. Broadly speaking, there are three main reasons for this. One is that cars have become more affordable for the average consumer and they are no longer a luxury item, but something that most families expect to own. A second reason is that public transport has become increasingly unreliable in recent years, not least because many bus and train services have been reduced because of the difficulty in funding them. The third reason is that society has in general become more mobile and this means more people are prepared to commute to work by car than they were before.
There is almost certainly no one solution to this problem given the complexity of its causes. However, one option has to be to improve the reliability of public transport to encourage people to take the bus or the train rather than get in the car. It would also be possible to discourage people from driving to work by introducing special tariffs for using the roads, especially during peak periods. A successful example of this is the congestion charge scheme in London which has certainly reduced the level of trafficin inner-city areas.
In conclusion, there are a variety of different factors that have led to rising levels of traffic in urban areas. While it may not be possible to find a complete solution, any action should probably involve encouraging greater use of public transport and making it more expensive for the motorist to drive in urban areas.
In recent years, farming practice has changed to include methods such as factory farming and the use of technology to improve crops. Some people believe these developments are necessary, while others regard them as dangerous and advocate a return to more traditional farming methods. Discuss both points of view and give your own opinion.
There is some controversy about how farming has been revolutionised in the past decades. While it is possible to claim that the net effect of these changes has been for the benefit of mankind, my view is that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. In this essay, I shall explain my point of view by analysing both sides of the argument.
There are several reasons why these innovations in agriculture can be said to be positive. One is that the world’s population has exploded within the past century and that traditional methods of agriculture could not provide sufficient food for everyone. It can also be argued that we need more efficient methods of farming because many countries in Asia and Africa suffer regular famine and droughts and the people would starve if it was not for genetically modified crops that are drought resistant. It should also not be forgotten that the quality of life of farmers has been improved by these advances which are less labour intensive.
Those who argue for a return to smaller scale and more organic farming base their arguments on the impact of agriculture on health and the environment. Firstly, it is claimed that a variety of diseases such as BSE, swine flu and bird flu were caused by conditions in factory farms and that organic food is much healthier. Then, there are concerns about the lack of research into how genetically modified crops might affect the ecosystem for the worse.
While there are strong arguments on both sides of the case, my personal belief is that the long-term dangers of these developments mean that we should be extremely cautious. I suggest that there should be more investment in traditional farming methods to make them more efficient and that there should be stronger legislation to ensure that both factory farms and GM crops are safe.
One of the major problems facing the world today is the growing number of refugees. The developed nations in the world should tackle this problem by taking in more refugees. To what extent do you agree with this opinion?
There is little doubt that the issue of refugees is a global problem. While it most immediately affects developing nations, there is a strong argument that industrialised countries should help by allowing higher levels of immigration. This is certainly not an easy issue though, because historically immigration has caused as many problems as it solves.
The principal reason why developed nations should help is that we now live in a global village and it is no longer possible to ignore what happens on the other side of the world. This is partly a moral issue and partly because it is in the economic self-interest of industrialised nations to ensure that developing nations continue to progress. A practical way of achieving this would be to accept more immigration, particularly when it is caused by natural disasters or civil war.
I would argue, however, that this is not an open and shut case, as there is a negative side to mass immigration. The multi-cultural experiments in Europe have not always succeeded and immigrants have often suffered badly from racism and other prejudices. On a practical level, refugees are sometimes better off receiving aid in their native land than begging on the streets in a country where they cannot speak the language. Many so-called economic migrants end up returning to the country of their birth.
My personal conclusion is that developed nations should agree to take in more refugees, but only in restricted numbers and in extreme cases. I also believe that there needs to be a global effort to provide aid to solve the problems that cause emigration. Prevention is as they say better than cure.
Newspapers and books are outdated. Why do some people believe this? What is your opinion?
As we move into the twenty- first century an increasing number of people are relying on new forms of technology. A possible consequence of this is that traditional media such as books and newspapers are not just less popular but are considered by some to be outdated. Personally, I disagree with this point of view.
The principal reason why some people take this view is fairly clear in the case of newspapers. It is generally much easier and quicker to discover what is happening in the world from the internet or the television than from a newspaper. If you use Google or another search engine or simply switch on the television, you can instantly get the latest news bulletin. A newspaper, by contrast, is out of date the moment it is published because it contains yesterday’s news.
It is perhaps less obvious why books are said to be out of fashion. One possibility is that fewer people choose to read for pleasure nowadays because they prefer the instant gratification and thrills of modern technology. There is less effort involved in enjoying a 3D movie or playing a computer game than in turning the pages of a book.
My own view and conclusion is that books and newspapers will never go completely out of fashion or become redundant. The reason for this is that they serve basic human needs. I believe that people will always want to read about the news and escape into the imaginary worlds of great novels. However, books and newspapers may need to change to meet the new demands of twenty-first century consumers. We can already see this happening with the arrival of the audio-book and the various free newspaper internet sites.
The best way to solve the world’s environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuel. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Most people would accept that one of the highest priorities today is to find a solution to the various environmental problems facing mankind. It has been suggested that best way to achieve this is for governments to raise the price of fuel. I am, however, not sure that this is necessarily the case.
One reason why this approach may not work is that there is not just one environmental problem the world faces today. If governments did make fuel more expensive, it might well help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we produce and so slow down the rate of global warming and air pollution. However, it would not help with other major problems such as intensive farming, overpopulation, the hole in the ozone layer or water pollution. For these problems we need to find other solutions.
A second reason why this policy may not be the most appropriate is that it places the emphasis on governmental policy and not individual responsibility. Ultimately, most environmental problems are the result of the way we as individuals live our lives. If we wish to find a long-term and lasting solution to them, we need to learn to live in a way that it is greener or kinder to the environment. What governments need to do to make this happen is to ensure there is a global programme to educate people of all ages about the environmental consequences to their actions.
In summary, I believe that increasing the level of taxation on fuel is at best a short-term solution to only one environmental problem. If we wish to provide a home for our children’s children, education is likely to be the key to making this happen.