48 Bài Mẫu IELTS Writing Task 2 Band 90 Của Thầy Simon PDF

Trung tâm luyện thi IELTS Fighter - Ngọc Cúc tổng hợp -
- Nhà báo. - Thế vận hội Olympic ưu và nhược

- Bạo lực truyền hình điểm.
Quảng cáo – - Xem ti vi tốt hay xấu với trẻ em - Nộp thuế cho nhà nước
Đầu tư
truyền thông - Sự lãng phí thời gian đọc báo - Phương thức thanh toán học phí
chính phủ
- Cấm quảng cáo có nên hay không? - Cung cấp chi phí cho nghiên cứu
khoa học.
- Nên từ thiện trong nước
- Nguyên nhân tội phạm vị thành - Khách du lịch nước ngoài bị tính phí
niên. nhiều hơn khách trong nước.
- Chuẩn mực quy tắc xã hội. - Du lịch qua TV thay thế du lịch thực
- Cải thiện an ninh trật tự. tế.
Tội phạm xã
- Người trẻ bị nhận tội như người lớn. Du lịch - Các quốc gia có sự tương đồng
hội
- Nghiên cứu hành vi đứa trẻ 3 tuổi. - Du lịch nước ngoài có hại không?
- Thí nghiệm động vật - Vai trò của âm nhạc

- Ưu và nhược điểm của các chuyến - Giá trị của nghệ thuật
bay giá rẻ - Gìn giữ ngôn ngữ thiểu số
- Lý do giải pháp cho động vật nguy - Phim nước ngoài được ưa chuộng
Văn hoá
Môi trường cơ tuyệt chủng. hơn phim trong nước
nghệ thuật
- Gia tăng sản xuất gây thiệt hại cho - Hộ trợ tài chính cho các nghệ sĩ.
môi trường.
- Ô nhiễm môi trường là liệu quá
trình tất yếu của phát triển kinh tế
- Viết thư tay dần biến mất. - Ưu điểm nhược điểm tiền tiêu vặt.
- Làm việc tại nhà của người lao - Thức ăn nhanh
động. - Nhịp sống nhanh ảnh hưởng tới xã
- Thư viện điện tử có thể thay thế thư hội.
Công nghệ viện truyền thống Đời sống - Áp lực bạn bè gây ảnh hưởng giới trẻ.
- Internet làm con người trong xã hội
cô lập.
- Giáo viên nên có trách nhiệm với
học sinh về cách ứng xử.
- Sự cần thiết của giáo dục - Người cao tuổi sống trong nhà dưỡng
- Học tập đại học là con đường thành lão hay ở nhà tốt.
công - Số người lao động nam và nữ đang có
- Sinh viên được phép đưa ra ý kiến xu hướng tương đồng.
với giáo viên Vấn đề xã - Một số công việc phù hợp với nam và
Giáo dục
- Mọi người nên đi học khi 18 tuổi hội nữ.
- Không nên xây dựng toà nhà như tác
- Mục đích của trường học dạy những
phẩm nghệ thuật.
công dân tốt và có trình độ
- Kinh tế là mục tiêu quan trong nhất
của quốc gia.
Chào các bạn,
Simon là giáo viên nổi dạy IELTS vô cùng nổi tiếng trên toàn thế giới. Là một cựu
examiner và có rất nhiều bài viết chia sẻ IETLS hay được cả cộng đồng học tập
trên website ielts-simon.com
Với phong cách viết đơn giản nhưng mang lại hiệu quả vô cùng lớn, những bài viết
của thầy Simon luôn gần gũi, dễ hiểu và dễ áp dụng đối với các học viên. Các bài
viết của thầy tương đối đơn giản nhưng lại là những bài viết xuất sắc và đạt band
điểm 9.0 cả task 1 và task 2.
Đã có nhiều người tổng hợp các bài viết của thầy, nhưng hôm nay mình cũng ngồi
lại tổng hợp 1 bản các bài viết task 2 band 9 một lần nữa. Có tất cả 48 bài essays
mẫu của thầy, mình chia thành các chủ đề khác nhau để mọi người học tập nhé!
Ngoài ra, mình cũng đang dành thời gian để phân tích chi tiết 48 bài mẫu này để rút
ra những bài học hay hơn giúp các bạn học tốt hơn. Phần này sẽ ra mắt trong phiên
bản tiếp theo của tài liệu, mong nhận được sự ủng hộ của các bạn.
Trước đó, các bạn nên đọc, tự phân tích kỹ từng bài viết để có những cụm từ hay,
cấu trúc chuẩn, đơn giản nhưng mạch lạc và đạt điểm cao trong phần thi Viết nhé!
Chúc các bạn học tốt!
- Ngọc Cúc | IELTS Fighter –
Groups: IETLS Fighter – Hỗ trợ học tập

https://www.facebook.com/groups/616767661847687/
I. Quảng cáo – truyền thông
We can get knowledge from news, but some people think we can't trust the journalist, what
do u think? And what do you think is the important qualities that a journalist should have?
Nowadays, reading the newspapers tremendously helps readers broaden the views. However,
whether we should trust the news source remains a controversial issue. I agree with the view that
regardless of the universally received industrial regulations, we cannot completely trust the
reporters.
First, it is obvious that journalists will lean forwards over-reporting or exaggerating negative
stories to hook viewers and thus maximise sales. This is because once the media is run by private,
the ultimate target of media companies now is to seek maximum economic profits. As a result,
we will always read the big media hype for the news reports that are no longer objective.
Moreover, when the media is totally manipulated by the governments in some countries, the
objectiveness in the reports are much more scarce. The authorities do not like or even directly
forbid publishing news reports which are against them. So in these situations, though the media
are full of praise and admiration, the citizens themselves in these countries will not trust what
they say at all.
That is not to say that the contents in the newspapers are not truthful thoroughly. It is often
reported in the media that some journalists sacrifice themselves to unveil the truth of events in
perilous areas. But to be honest, these dedicated employees are unfortunately few.
In sum, viewers should have their own judgements among the numerous news reports;
meanwhile, what the reporters should keep in mind is the responsibility, impartiality and
objectiveness in their work. Only by doing so can we ensure that the media industry will develop
in a healthy environment.
264 words
The government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to
decrease the violent crimes in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this
issue?
It has been suggested that the government should control the amount of violence in films and on
television in order to decrease the rate of violent crimes in society. It would certainly be easy to
garner support for such a move, but solely adapting such a policy will do little to effect social
change.
The question has often been raised as to what extent media violence actually influences behavior.
One can readily recount incidences of a child or young person viewing some violent behavior in a
movie or on television and then trying to reproduce that situation in real life. It is hard to estimate
the amount of violence which can be traced back to television shows or movies but the existence
of such incidences is undeniable. Logically, removing this violent content should directly reduce
the incidence of such violence but this relationship between violent media content and violent
behavior is not so simple.
While much has been recorded of young people imitating media violence, little has been directed
to the influence of sad violence on those who are able to differentiate the imaginary situations in
movies and on television from reality. If one were to find no similar relationship it could be
immediately surmised that the most direct solution is increased supervision of young people, and
not themodification of media content. The degree to which people are influenced by what they
see in the media depends directly on how responsibly they are educated about the relationship of
fiction and reality.
Watching comedies does not transform one into a comedian, and watching violent movies does
not directly make one violent. Rather than taking crude half measures to repair complex social
problems, more focus must be placed on the nature of interpersonal relationships, social
responsibility and personal accountability.
Watching Television has bad influence on children in every way. Some people think it is
good for children's growth. Discuss both sides of this issue and give your own opinion.
Pros
 Gain knowledge and experience

 Entertain children
 Interesting friend to talk Cons
 Be harmful to their mentality
 Learn bad habits form violent programs an others
 Health problems
 Waste of time and put their learning in danger
Television becomes part of people’s lives. Some people think that watching televison is
condicive to their waste of time while others believe that habit nurtures good behavior in
children. My essay will provide insights into pros and cons of this issure.
On one hand, it is believed that televison watching bestows on children advantages. First of all,
thanks to this habit, children feel enterained after assidous days at work. Music programs on
television such as Vietnam Idol or The Voiec are said to ease their stress greatly. Equally
important, children themselves can nurture good behavior and learn meaningful lessons by
watching educational programs. For instance, no sooner has sister watched charity campaigns on
television than she takes part in this activity and betters her soceity. In anoter case, according to
social surveys, those children who are updated with latest news on televison are knowledgeable
and communicative with various discussions with others. One of my friends who met an English
man was obtained from his years of watching discovery channel on television.
On the other hand, there are niticaeble discadvantages of this activity. Its is true that habit can
lead to children's fatige, especially when they are addicted to watching television. Surveys have
also shown that shose spending more than 3 hours watching suffer a highter risk of obesity and
eye sight problems. Besides, educationally speaking, as a consequence of being obsessed with
virtual word, children may become less active in thinking and communication. Studies have
stated that compared with reading, watching television is a much more passive hobby, lessening
children's imagination and creativity since children are directly affected with images without
deep critical thinking. Furthermore, violent programs on television, which are broadcast more
often are partly responsible for children's behavioral deterioration. A little kid in America who
used guns to point at series of people confessed that his action was provoked by his watching a
hero do the same time in a movie.
In brief, there are both pains and gains behind television. Therefore, parents should be th guide
for children to make use of good sources od television anf limit harmful influence to as ensure a
comprehensive and healthy education the latter.
Some people think news have no connection to people’s lives, so then it is a waste of time to
read the news in the newspaper and watch television news programs. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?
The advent of the information age has bombarded the public with too much information, much of
which has little connection with people’s daily life. In this sense, some believe reading news on
newspapers or watching news programs on TV is a waste of time. However, in my opinion, being
informed of the latest events can still bring great benefits to people.
Obtaining the news information is instructive to people’s life. Frequently reading the news
reports, no matter in newspapers or on TV programs, citizens can be enabled to understand
clearer the policies of the country, and thus can behave accordingly, without worrying to be
lagged behind. Also, knowing what is happening around or over the world, people can be
motivated to grasp more chances to realize their dreams.
Reading news helps people to enjoy better communication with the others. Always being
connected with the news, people can be broadened in their horizons and thus are enabled to have
more topics to share with their friends or relatives. Moreover, when something urgent such as
disasters or other forms of tragedies happen, people may not only offer their help to show
humanity, but also gain some experience in tackling the problems.
Admittedly, with the help of computers and the Internet as well as the mobile phones, people are
surrounded by the popping out of news reports. In this case, people are already besieged by too
much information, making the reading of news in newspapers and TV programs seemingly
pointless. However, this cannot deprive people of their rights to enjoy the time with their family
members and this does not mean they can select out the right information. Therefore, getting
news that is selected for them from newspapers or TV programs can still be of great value to the
public.
To sum up, newspapers and TV news programs are still significant in delivering news reports. As
for how to take advantages of them, it depends on individual’s judgment, rather than just an
assertion of a waste of time.
Society would benefit from the ban on all forms of advertising because it may serve no
useful purpose, and can even be damaging. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Advertising in modern society is ubiquitous – on the radio, TV, the internet and in our
letterboxes. While advertising has many disadvantages, the positive influence of
advertising outweighs the negative. So, I disagree that there should be a ban on all
advertisements.
It is true that advertising provides us with information on new products. If it were not
for electronic and print advertising, many products would not be bought. In this way,
advertising provides an important service to manufacturers and some consumers.
Additionally, it fuels the advertising industry, creating jobs for thousands of people. In
this respect it has the backbone of many economies of the world.
Furthermore, advertisements touch social issues. For example, when Amitabh
Bachhan tells people to bring their children for pulse polio immunization, people
listen. Then there are ads against female foeticide which are very informative.
Advertisements also teach a lot about the country from where the ads come. This is
because through satellite TV we can see ads from all over the world. When we see a
Japanese advert of a lady in a kimono, we come to know about the clothes of Japan.
However, Adverts also have a downside. Television commercials are a great example
of this. Just as we are enjoying a TV program, a commercial break occurs, forcing us to
listen. Advertising can also promote consumerism. People can become greedy for a
new product and they can become discontent with what they already have. In the
end, the consumer is never really satisfied, always wanting ‘newer and better’
products. Then, ads show dangerous stunts which may be copied by children and they
may get hurt. Finally, some ads target children and so children pester parents to buy
things which can upset the family budget.
On balance, I believe that as every rose is accompanied by thorns, ads too have their
disadvantages. Overall, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. So we should
not ban ads. The government can, however, ban some ads which show stunts or which
make false claims.
II. Tội phạm xã hội
Crimes committed by young people are increasing in major cities throughout the world.
Discuss the causes and how to solve this problem?
Over the last few decades, many cities around the world have seen alarming increases in the
levels of youth crime. This essay will discuss the reasons for this and provide some possible
solutions.
The first reason is connected with the family. In order for a child to grow up in a balanced way, it
is very important that he or she is nurtured well by his or her parents. However, these days, it is
often the case that children are neglected. This may be because of the fact that many parents in
cities now both have to work so are often not around to give their children support when needed.
Another factor is the increasing levels of poverty around the world. We have seen with
globalization the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and this inevitably means that those who
are poorer will have to resort to illegal means to get what others have. Of course, this will include
the children in the poorer families.
However, there are ways to tackle such problems. Firstly, one of the ways to combat the problem
is to have stricter punishments. Although, as discussed above, it can be outside factors that lead
to crime, it is still important to have severe punishments to deter teenagers from crime. All too
often, because they are young, the courts are too lenient. Parents also have to take more
responsibility for their children’s actions. They too should be punished if their children commit
crime.
To sum up, several factors have led to increases in youth crime, but measures are available to
tackle this problem.
Society is based on rules and laws. It could not function if individuals were free to do
whatever they wanted. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Governments have the responsibility of ensuring the safety of their citizens by imposing
certain rules and laws. Although it may restrict their freedom to a certain extent, there
would be utter chaos in society in the absence of these laws.
Rules and regulations cause minor inconveniences to people but they also ensure the safety
of individuals and society. It is a reality that hundreds of accidents are caused due to
drunken driving. Since there are many rules against driving under the influence of alcohol,
many accidents that could cause great damage to human life and property, are avoided.
Those who believe that such rules interfere with their freedom pay with their own lives and
that of others. The conclusion one can draw from these experiences is that people should
tolerate certain inconveniences, in order to protect their lives from possible dangers.
Littering and spitting in public places is considered a serious offence in Singapore, which is
dealt with serious fines. People in countries like India, that do not have such strict rules on
public hygiene may not realise the value of such a regulation but this has made Singapore
one of the most beautiful and cleanest countries in the world. When people learn the
benefits of certain restrictions, they would begin to appreciate such constraints on their
freedom.
However, in certain case, we may find that some rules are unnecessary and ineffective.
These are only rare instances and citizens have the right to raise objections against them.
Any sensible government would revoke such rules and regulations if it finds them
unproductive.
In general, the rules that we have are not too many but essential for the smooth functioning
of any civil society. The absence of such controls would lead to chaos and confusion in
public life.
More and more measures to improve the security in the urban area have been introduced
because of the increased crime. Do the benefits of the measures outweigh the drawbacks?
Crime and the fear of crime are very big concerns in big cities and so many security
measures have been introduced to tackle crime. In this essay I intend to delve into the
advantages and disadvantages of these methods. The advantages definitely outweigh the
disadvantages.
One such measure is the security cameras which have become ubiquitous in many
countries. Earlier they appeared only in banks and at high-security areas but now they are
seen in public places such as malls, streets, stadiums and transport. Surveillance cameras
have several benefits. An obvious benefit is that the police can catch criminals in the act,
thus reducing crime. This has made the streets safer for ordinary people. A more important
point is that criminals, particularly young offenders or petty criminals are deterred. They will
not be tempted to carry out crimes, and thus society will be a lot safer. Cameras are also
cost-effective and unobtrusive. Authorities do not need to spend large amounts of money
on police.
Another security measure is the computerized data collection of individuals. This also helps
the police force to operate more effectively. The data can be updated regularly and data
retrieval is very easy and quick. These methods are also cost effective. Other Methods like
police patrolling on the roads has also been intensified. These methods bring a sense of
security in the minds of people.
However, some people object to these measures. The biggest objection concerns privacy.
Many people feel that they should be free to travel or move around a shop, mall, street or
country without being photographed or recorded. They feel that being watched constantly
is like being in a jail, and that ordinary people are losing their freedom because of these
devices. Even the computerized data collection of individuals can go in wrong hands.
To conclude, I pen down saying that, there are definite advantages to using such measures, but
we need to balance the need for security with respect for the individual’s privacy and freedom. If
this is done then definitely the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
Young people who commit serious crimes should be punished in the same way as adults. To
what extent do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, there is an increasing concern that there are many young people who commit crimes.
However, some people argue that these criminals should receive the same kind of punishment as
adults. I agree with the view that if they have done it more than once, there is little reason to
protect them from harsh punishment.
Firstly, it is obvious that some underage criminals do not have a clear understanding of the
consequences of behaviour when they make the mistake for the first time. The main point of
punishment to this group is to educate them the importance of obeying the law, rather than
punishing them for being ignorant of the law. Therefore giving them a softer punishment could
be enough to prevent them from doing further harm to the society.
Moreover, the shortcoming in education is the root cause contributing to the growing juvenile
delinquency. Chances are that if children receive appropriate education in schools and families,
they will get into trouble in the future. So the favourable education must be available before
children having habit of unacceptable behaviour.
That is not to say that if these underage criminals never learn the lesson and keep crossing the
bottom line of the legal system, a severer treatment is still unnecessary in this case. The law could
not forgive a law breaker again and again, which can trigger people’s doubt on legal justice. So
no matter how young they are, breaking the law seriously for the second time deserves the
equivalent punishment as adults.
In sum, I believe that those young people who have only committed a serious crime once deserve
a less harsh and punishment and more rigorous education whereas those who keep ignoring the
consequences of their wrong behaviour should be treated the same as adults. Only in this way can
the social justice be respected to a large extent.
310 words
Many scientists believe that now we can study the behavior of a three-year-old child to see
whether they will grow up to be criminals. To what extent do you think the human nature
produces crimes? And how can we prevent children from growing up to be criminals?
Many scientists believe that now we can study the behavior of a three-year-old child to see
whether they will grow up to be criminals. To what extent do you think the human nature
produces crimes? And how can we prevent children from growing up to be criminals?
Conventional wisdom has always preached that the most significant factor that influences
character formation is the upbringing a child receives. If he is brought up by good parents, then
he is also going to be good when he grows up. In the same way, children surrounded by criminals
during their formative years are more likely to exhibit criminal tendencies. That means character
is something that we can shape.
However, none of these are absolute rules. In fact, there are several exceptions. Children born to
kind parents can sometimes grow into cruel, unsympathetic adults. In this case, all that good
upbringing they received from their parents couldn’t reform them. In the same way, children born
to hardcore criminals can sometimes grow into sympathetic, conscientious adults. They are
unlikely to have received a good upbringing, but that didn’t prevent them from becoming good
adults.
In other words although upbringing and education play a significant role in shaping a person’s
character, they aren’t the only factors that decide whether a child will grow into a responsible
adult or not. In fact, there could be quite a few other factors which are equally important and
some of them could be biological. If that is indeed so, then the scientists who claim that by brain
mapping a child they can detect his criminal tendencies might be correct. Even so, it is too early
to claim that the structure of a person’s brain is the only factor that determiners his character. It
could be one of the factors, but it can’t be the only factor because history is replete with examples
of criminals who were reformed by love and kindness. Even wild animals tend to respond
amiably when we treat them with love.
After analyzing the situation it is not hard to see that a person’s inherent nature or the structure of
his brain can play a role in determining his character. However, it would be wrong to assume that
crime is merely a product of our nature. It is equally wrong to claim that there is nothing that we
can do to prevent our kids from becoming criminals.
III. Môi trường
Some people think that using animals for experimentation purpose is cruel, but other
people think that it is necessary for the development of science. Discuss both views and give
your opinion.
It is true that medicines and other products are routinely tested on animals before they are cleared
for human use. While I tend towards the viewpoint that animal testing is morally wrong, I would
have to support a limited amount of animal experimentation for the development of medicines.
On the one hand, there are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. To use a
common example of this practice, laboratory mice may be given an illness so that the
effectiveness of a new drug can be measured. Opponents of such research argue that humans
have no right to subject animals to this kind of trauma, and that the lives of all creatures should
be respected. They believe that the benefits to humans do not justify the suffering caused, and
that scientists should use alternative methods of research.
On the other hand, reliable alternatives to animal experimentation may not always be available.
Supporters of the use of animals in medical research believe that a certain amount of suffering on
the part of mice or rats can be justified if human lives are saved. They argue that opponents of
such research might feel differently if a member of their own families needed a medical treatment
that had been developed through the use of animal experimentation. Personally, I agree with the
banning of animal testing for non-medical products, but I feel that it may be a necessary evil
where new drugs and medical procedures are concerned.
In conclusion, it seems to me that it would be wrong to ban testing on animals for vital medical
research until equally effective alternatives have been developed.
(270 words, band 9)
Some people think that the recent increase in cheap air travel has brought many benefits,
but others believe that this development has drawbacks for the environment and world’s
resources. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion
It is believed that the travelling rate of people today is higher than ever. The following essay will
discuss some of the factors which affect the situation and several advantages of the activity for
the traveler.
There are various reasons why the travelling activities have increased significantly in the past
recent years. Firstly, a lot of people travel intensively due to the existence of the low cost airlines.
It is a fact that budget airline companies such as Air Asia or Tiger Air are providing affordable
and economic ticket therefore people from different range of income could purchase it. Secondly,
many companies have increased their export and import activities due to the globalization. As a
result, their employees have to do excessive business trips to other regions or other continents.
Thirdly, as business competition gets tougher each day, the stress level of the workers has risen.
Consequently, the number of people who travel for leisure activities has grown rapidly in the past
few years.
It is undeniable that travelling activities bring a lot of benefits for the travelers themselves. As
people travel to another country, they would have the chance to learn a new culture. For example,
many westerners have visited China, since they were attracted to see the unique culture of the
ancient China civilization such as the Great Wall of China or the Terracotta Army. Travelling
also helps people in releasing their stress. It is obvious that people who live in big cities are
stressed with their tight schedule and by taking some trips to the countryside; it will help them in
loosen the tense.
In conclusion, it is true that travelling activities have increased rapidly in the past recent time, and
people are travelling for various kinds of purposes. Some people are taking the trips for business
activities, while others are for holiday. Travelling is also a positive activity since people could get
a lot of benefits from doing the activity.
Many species of plants and animals are declining in the world. Give possible reasons and
offer solutions.
It is unquestionable that many plant and animal species are losing their natural habitats and they
are becoming extinct in nature. There are several causes of this universal issue, but measures
could be taken to tackle the problem. This will be proven by looking at some of the causes and
effective solutions to the problem.
Firstly, in many countries the trees are being uprooted giving the way to farmland, on which
crops are grown and animals are kept on it. This sort of deforestation leads to the loss of natural
habitats of these species, and the likely hood is that the whole species of animals will be at the
level of extinction. For example, Giant panda has become an endangered species because they
have lost their wildlife habitats. As this shows that deforestation of jungles is causing elimination
of these animals. Thus, it is clear from this example that animals are disappearing because of
cutting down of plants.
Secondly, much of the human actions are responsible for the destruction of marine life. This,
devastation is apparent when the industrial waste and nuclear waste is pumped into sea and
oceans. This chemical waste kills the aquatic plants and animals, and as result of this life cycle
gets halted. Overall, this would significantly affect the production of food. For example, in
Bhopal, India, multinational fertilizer companies in 1992 throw their chemical waste into the
river, and because of this almost all species of fish were killed. Thus, it can be concluded from
this example that chemical waste kills the fish and plant.
The most effective solution to tackle this problem is the intervention of government. The
authorities should put some sort of levy on the companies who are pumping deadly chemical
waste into lakes and rivers.
In conclusion, it has been shown that plants and animals are on its last leg. Thus, it is predicted
that the government should make some stricter rules in an attempt to safeguard plants and
animals.
An increase in production of consumer goods results in damage of the natural environment.

What are the causes and possible solutions?
Today we live in an era of continuously increasing consumer demand. This rate of consumption
is increasing at an alarming rate. This essay shall deal with the causes of increase in production
goods and how it affects the environment and suggest some ways forward.
The first and foremost reason for the increase in production of consumer goods is the burgeoning
population of today. More people lead to more demand. Secondly, because of globalization
people are flooded with choices. When they see a new product they want that too. What is more,
the buying capacity of people has gone up because of developing economies. Finally, the
manufacturing industries are producing cheaper consumer goods by compromising with quality.
These are affordable by the common man but the quality is so bad that they cannot be repaired.
Mostly they have to be discarded after some time of use.
The most serious effect of this phenomenon is on the environment. Our landfill sites are filling up
with non bio-degradable wastes. It is also leading to pollution. Destroying used plastic is
becoming a major problem everywhere. Even the recycling of plastic needs a lot of electricity.
Conventional methods of generating electricity add to pollution. Disposing of a lot of waste
materials such as heavy metals like lead and mercury and poisonous gases also adds to pollution.
It is said that the earth can satisfy everybody’s need but not everybody’s greed. The amount of
energy used in manufacturing and disposal of consumer goods is also leading us to a brink of
energy crises.
The solutions are not easy. Steps have to be taken on a war footing. People have to be made
aware of the disastrous consequences of consumerism. People should buy only what is absolutely
necessary. As far as possible biodegradable materials should be used as raw materials and
excessive packaging should be avoided. Industries should be encouraged to use alternative
sources of energy during production. Quality should not be compromised with. This would
definitely help in reducing the use-and-throw culture. Finally, waste disposal methods should be
very good. Strict action should be taken against those industries which dump their effluents
indiscriminately.
In conclusion, I believe that, consumerism is rampant nowadays and it is having a detrimental

effect on our environment but steps can be taken to minimize the bad effects of excessive
consumerism.
Some people think pollution and damage of environment are resulted from a country
developing and becoming richer, and this is hard to be avoided. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?
Environmental problems and pollutions are often considered to be the direct result of a country’s
development. Industrialization, growing number of factories, people’s capability of purchasing
more cars and electronic device etc. are often related to the economic condition and growth of a
nation. However, I do not agree that pollution and other environmental problems are caused only
because of the economic growth of a country and that this cannot be avoided.
First, it does not take an expert to understand that pollution and environmental problems are more
prominent in poor countries than that of rich countries. Air, sound and water pollutions in
countries like India and Bangladesh are far dangerous than that of developed countries like
Australia, Canada and the UK. Furthermore, the number of factories does not represent the
amount of pollution it causes. For instance, recent researches have made it clear that only few
garments factories in country like Bangladesh cause far more damage to the air and water
resources than hundreds of bigger industries do in the United States.
Second, economic development does not mean that a country will have industries and factories
all over the country. Proper planning and inspection from the government can ensure the minimal
emission of gas and other toxic elements into the water and air. So even if the industrialization is
imminent for the development of a country, it does not mean that we will have no way to
minimize the pollution and environmental issues. For instance, industrialization does not cause as
much deforestation as it is caused by human greed and lack of inspection and law in many
countries.
Finally, pollution is a global issue and proper law and enforcement of laws can reduce it to a
great extent. We cannot stop the natural causes of pollution but the greater percentages of
environmental pollutions are caused by the human actions. We should educate people, encourage
them and enforce strict laws to save our environment while development of a country has nothing
to do with the rampant pollution we can see nowadays in many cities.
In conclusion, I would agree that development and industrialization affect the environment
negatively to some extent but this is not the prime factor to pollute our environment. We still
have time and lot of options to reduce the pollutions and environmental problems to make the
world a better place for the future generation.
IV. Công nghệ
With the increasing use of mobile phones and computers, less people tend to write letters.
Some people think the skill of writing letters will disappear completely? To what extent do
you agree or disagree?
Computers or mobile phones are widely used. However, will the use of these machines harm the
tradition of writing letters? Unlike what has been imagined, the tradition will not disappear. On
the contrary, it will last for a relatively long period of time.
It will last not because people still pay attention to its function but because people emphasize its
aesthetic value, which is virtually woven in the warp and weft of culture. This might explain why
some letters written in ink by some celebrities and distinguished are exhibited in museums.
Hence, such a tradition as writing letters will not extinct in case the culture continues.
Another piece of evidence supporting this theory is that the skills in writing using traditional
tools such as the Chinese brush have been remarkably emphasized by educators, parents, and the
community as a whole. In schools, the traditional writing clubs are common. In fact, national
competitions about these skills are held by various governmental or civil organizations. In
households, parents generally encourage the kids to practice the traditional skills while computers
and mobiles are necessary.
Even in the field of business operation and government administration, traditional skills in
writing letters are not disappearing. For instance, many advertisements of products or services are
not printed with computers. Rather they are written by very famous people in a society to attract
more consumers. The letters written by a certain leader such as a president usually convey more
than those printed with machines when establishing or entrenching the international relationship
between two nations.
To sum up, while the computers and mobiles phones become the routines, the traditional skills in
writing letters will survive and thrive.
Many employees may work at home with modern technology. Some people claim that it
benefits only workers, but not employers. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Telecommuting is becoming increasingly popular in modern days for its undeniable convenience.
However, there have been opinions against this practice claiming that it may negatively affect the
employers. Personally, I believe that not only does telework benefit workers but it also brings
many advantages to their companies.
Firstly, teleworking helps companies reduce costs substantially. Because telecommuters do not
go to a central workplace, the employers will not have to pay for renting offices, equipping
furniture and stationery, and hiring cleaners. This amount of money might be better spent on
advertising, upgrading products and human resources which are essential for the company’s long-
term development.
Secondly, working from home increases the company’s profitability. At home, workers are more
focused on their work because they work under a comfortable condition and on a flexible
schedule, thus reducing stress level. In addition, in offices there are a lot of distractions such as
colleagues’ chatting or worries about family responsibilities. Telework can have all those
problems solved and boost staffs’ productivity. What I want to emphasize here is the correlation
between productivity and lucrativeness. The more efficiently employees work, the higher profit
their company will obtain.
Finally, telecommuting allows the company to maintain its operation in case of emergency. For
instance, when a flood, heavy rain or a epidemic strikes and people are not recommended to go
out or meet others, working from home proves to be one of the best solutions to preventing loss
in productivity and revenue to the organization. This is also the reason why it is highly suggested
that companies consider teleworking as part of their preparation for severe weather events and
contagious diseases.
On the whole, although there are convincing arguments against the practice of telecommuting, I
believe the mutual benefits that it brings to both workers and employers are much greater than the
loss it may cause.
Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology can replace
their functions. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
IT industry has made too many revolutionary changes in all aspects of the society, and the public
education is not exempt from this trend. Personally, I strongly believe that the Internet-based
library, or electronic library, will take the place of the real-world library in this century, and my
reasons will be explored as below.
This assertion is fundamentally right, because of the incomparable advantages of advanced

computer technology. Firstly, the e-library can bring great convenience to the audience.
Obviously, online technology eradicates the physical and time limits, and makes the e-library
universally at all times and places. For example, people can have an easy and comfortable access
to the e-library by using the Internet at home, which saves the time and energy that could be
wasted in going out to the real library, or standing in the long queue in front of the loan desk.
The second reason of supporting e-library is about the costs. Compared with a real library whose
operation relies on big multi-storey buildings, complicated security systems and hundreds of
administrators, the running of an e-library is much cheaper and simpler, because all it needs are
no more than a small room with few servers. That is to say, the wide application of e-library can
substantially save the land, budget of education and social jobs.
The third, and perhaps the most important reason why the substitution of e-library for the
physical one is desirable is its efficiency. E-library is an advanced information management
system. What readers have to do is to enter key words and click the mouse, and this system can
automatically realize the location, analysis, filtering and presentation of all relative information
and data from millions of collected books, in just few seconds.
All in all, my opinion is advantages brought by new computer and Internet technology, from the
convenience to cheapness to high efficiency of information searching, provides good reasons for
modern people to embrace the e-library and abandon tangible ones.（327 words）
People can go to shop, bank, and work with computer. But the danger is that people are
getting isolated and losing some social skills. To what extent do you agree with this opinion?
It is a fact that internet technology has helped people in connecting with their relatives and
friends without the boundaries of distance and cost, but many people think that the technology
has made people become less socialized and more individualistic. To a certain extent, I would
agree that the internet has negatively affected to people's social life, but if we use the technology
in a wise and appropriate manner, it has a lot of positive functions.
On the one hand, it is true that many people are having social life problems these days, due to the
existence of internet and information technology. Almost everybody have their own mobile
phone nowadays, and they can use it for browsing, chatting and online gaming. With all the
attractive and entertaining applications, many people like to play around with their gadget for
hours and abandon their social life. As a result, it has been reported that many families are having
communication problems these days due to they have less time for an eye to eye contact with
other family members.
However, it can be clearly seen that the problem has risen due to the improper and indiscipline
act of users themselves. If the internet is used in the right purpose and in the appropriate portion,
it would bring many benefits for mankind. Firstly, internet technology has truly changed the way
individuals and corporations interact and correspond. With electronic email and chatting facilities
such as yahoo or google, people could communicate and connected with other people in a more
efficient and effective way. Secondly, the internet could also be used to expand people's
networking. Social media sites such as Facebook or twitter could be used to connect people from
different areas, maintain friendships and even it could be used for online businesses as well.
Therefore, it depends on of the users themselves on how wise they use it.
In conclusion, although online technology has become a problem for some people's social life,
others disagree about it. To a certain point, I do believe that internet could be a treat to our social
life, but if people use it wisely and appropriately then I do believe that it has a lot of benefits for
individuals and societies.
Some people think that teachers should be responsible for teaching students how to judge
right and wrong and how to behave well. Some say that teachers should only teach students
about academic subjects. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
People hold different views regarding what educators should teach to pupils in school. Although,
some believe they should focus solely on book-work, others maintain that they should do more
and instil a sense of moral judgement and an ability to act well. I share this latter view and I will
outline my reasons below.
Several reasons exist to support the idea that teachers should focus mainly on knowledge in their
instruction of students. First, the most important things that students learn come from books,
namely subjects like math and science. These will be crucial in the students’ careers. It follows,
then, that teachers should devote most of their time to these academic disciplines. Second, parents
have the right and the duty to impart such things to their offspring and it isn’t the business of the
school. And since the relationship between them is deeper, the lessons learnt will be stronger.
On the other hand, I believe that teachers should contribute somewhat to a student’s moral
education. First, teachers nowadays spend much more time with kids than the kids’ parents and
are thus able to play a more significant role. Second, because the children are in groups, the
teacher can efficiently impart life-skills to many individuals at the same time. This might lead to
minimizing the influence of badly behaved kids. Finally, children need more than just parents,
and teachers are in a fantastic position to be role models and help the child’s mental and social
development.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that teachers should not restrict themselves to academic
instruction, but should also actively help each child to differentiate between right and wrong and
learn good behaviour. If this occurs, students will develop into well-adjusted adults, fit for
productive lives in society.
V. Giáo dục
Some people consider that history is of little or no use to us. Others believe that studying
history helps us to know the present. Discuss these views and give your own opinion.
History refers to all the things that happened in the past, especially the political, social, or economic
development of a nation. Literally, everything, including a nation, a city, a town, a subject, a business,
and even a product, has its unique history. Some individuals are of the opinion that studying past history
is useless today but others believe it is very essential to know history to better understand the present. I
intend to discuss both sides of the argument in this essay.
Undoubtedly, the present is the continuation of the past. Therefore, studying the past history can enable
us to better understand what is going on around us. For example, if we are equipped with relevant
knowledge of history, it will be easier for us to understand the evolution of mankind. It would also tell us
how we progressed and reached where we are today. We would also know how technology developed
step by step. History can serve us as a guide because of which we do not repeat the mistakes
of yesteryears. We also get inspiration from the great men of the past through history. Those opposed to
the study of history argue that the past was very different from the present and we cannot apply that
knowledge to the present. For example, they say that the French Revolution and the freedom struggle of
India have no need to be learnt because those situations will never arise again. What they forget is that
this knowledge makes us realise the importance of liberty and self governance.
Opponents of the study of history also claim that history has nothing to do with professionals such as
architects and accountants. I believe they would be better in their professions if they know something
about the history of architecture or that of accountancy. As a matter of fact, you are supposed to
demonstrate some evidence of historical ability if you want to pursue almost any career.
To sum up, studying the past history can not only deepen and widen our knowledge but also help us
develop the power of analysis. Thus, we are able to look at what is happening at present from a historical
perspective and better understanding.
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.
(271 words, band 9)
Many people argue that in order to improve educational quality continuously, students are
encouraged to make comments or even criticism on teachers. Others think the respect and
discipline in the classroom will disappear. Which opinion do you prefer?
Nowadays, in some high schools students are allowed to blame their tutors for their method of
teaching. Some say that this strategy can improve the quality of training; however, others,
including myself, believe that its advantages outweigh the benefits being earned from this system
because teaching will become less effective, the rate of offence will increase and more budgets
will be needed for education.
Obviously, I give a green light to those believing that students should not be involved in teaching
because of three important reasons. One is that following this method, the quality of education
can drop. Definitely, rules are extremely important for controlling of students because many of
them do not have enough experience about teaching, reducing the educational performance
thoroughly. For example, had our principal allowed us to give our opinion about practical physic
lessons, we would not have learned the detail of them. We understood that our physic trainer had
been one of the best ones in this course; however, had we allowed to have challenges with him,
we would have missed him.
Another reason behind it is that the rate of violence can increase markedly. Students feel more
freedom in other aspects of their life when their opinions are valued in this area, and their
behaviours will become less controllable. This group can become more aggressive in the
workplace, university or even in their relations to other citizens. However, when they face some
restrictions during this stage in their life, they become more probable law-abiding citizens.
Lastly, the cost of education can increase. Admittedly, this method of education will become
more costly because students always consider the quality of teaching, while the expenses must be
included in the new changes. For instance, if an instructor, having one-year training contract, is
banned by students to teach them, he will receive the total salary. Authorities usually consider all
aspects of education, including finance, and budget.
In conclusion, although some people might agree that students’ opinions should be valued by
authorities, I personally believe that this is not a perfect method. Having a better control by the
administration, the rate of violation among students and education expenses will decrease, and
authorities will have a better control on the efficacy of training system.
Everybody should stay in school until 18 years old. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
It is often said that if you want to succeed in life, you need a proper education. While there may
be arguments for making school compulsory until the age of 18 , I disagree that this should apply
to everyone.
Perhaps the strongest reason for not leaving school early is that it prepares you for your working
career. If you leave school early with only a basic education, you are unlikely to be able to find
any skilled work. Indeed, the education you receive between the ages of 16 and 18 is crucial for
anyone who does not want a lifetime of unskilled work in a factory.
Another compelling reason for remaining in school until 18 is that school provides moral and
social education too. This is particularly important for people between 16 and 18 who have many
temptations and benefit from the organised framework that school provides. Young people who
stay in school until the age of 18 tend to be more responsible and help build a stronger society.
There are, however, equally strong arguments against making school compulsory until the age of
18. One such argument is that not everyone is academic and that some people benefit more from
vocational training. For instance, someone who wants to become a car mechanic may find better
training and more satisfaction in an apprentice scheme. Another related argument is that, in
today’s world, young people are maturing ever more quickly and are able to make their own life
decisions by the age of 16.
To my mind, everyone should be encouraged to stay in school until 18 both for social and career
reasons. However, I believe it would be a mistake to make this compulsory bearing in mind that
different people have different needs and abilities and the possibilities of other forms of
vocational training.
Some people think that the main purpose of schools is to teach children to be a good citizen
or worker rather than to benefit them as individuals. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
I definitely agree with the statement that the primary aim of schools is to turn the
pupils into good citizens and workers rather than benefit them as individuals. I feel
that schools have to fulfil both things but the primary aim is towards the welfare of
the society and the benefit to the individual automatically ensues.
Schooling can do a lot for shaping children. Firstly, school is a system with so many
possibilities for a child to grow into what he or she actually is. For example, teachers
are able to mould children by identifying their hidden strengths, and the same
strength may later make the child what he actually is in this world for.
Secondly, since children spend a sizeable amount of their time with teachers and a
community of boys and girls from different faiths, statuses and family values – there is
great possibility for a child to undergo a transformation into a good human being.
Teachers are a great force to influence children.
Of course, learning academic subjects is the main aim for what students go to schools.
Definitely, the job market requires professional knowledge the most. But it is also true
that if students become good citizens and workers, they are themselves equally
benefited too.
To conclude, I pen down saying that, raising children into real human beings
involves several factors. Among them, the prominent one is good schooling. Schools’
main function is to make students good and responsible workers and the personal
benefit to students also takes place simultaneously.
VI. Đầu tư chính phủ
Holding Olympic Games has positive effects. Others believe it is too money-consuming and
the government should spend that money on other areas.
Impacts and costs of international sporting events are quite controversial in the present time.
Some of the schools are focusing on benefits of holding international sports events while the
opposite school is on the view that this is a waste of time, funds and effort. This essay delves
with the viewpoint before it closes the argument.
Firstly, international sporting events help to build some special relations between the hostile
countries. For instance, the relationship between India and Pakistan is not so friendly and they
have disputes on many issues. But the disputes are overlooked on the playground. When the
teams participate in cricket, the relationships among the players are not hostile. They are
cooperative and exercise the best friendly attitude with each other. If it continues, it is expected
that the cold relations between the two countries will turn warmer someday. Moreover, such
events bring foreign revenue, inspire sports lover to take part in outdoor games and promote a
healthy lifestyle.
But on the contrary, the disadvantages are also acknowledgeable. When an international and
exciting sports competition is arranged, people want to watch those events – some prefer to watch
live on the playground while many like to watch on television sitting at home. To enjoy a high
voltage cricket match or exciting Olympic events, people need to waste their valuable times both
in day and night times. A hardcore cricket fan may bunk office, school or may make late rising
early next morning for sleeping at late night. Thereby, in a greater consideration, this is a waste
of time, effort and money for the ordinary people. On top of that, hosting those events requires a
huge some of money and efforts.
To finish the argument, I would like to say that, though arranging big events is costly, they have
many advantages. They promote friendly relationship, entertain people, promote tourism and
inspire young people to participate more in sports. This is why I disagree with the view that big
sporting events are an enormous waste of fund, time and effort.
People believe that they should be able to keep all the money they earn and should not pay
tax to the state. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
A group of people think that residents should keep all their earnings and should not have an
obligation in paying taxes to the government. I personally disagree with the statement as taxes are
useful for the residents and the nation themselves, and the following essay will discuss it in
details.
To begin with, it is a fact that taxes are used by the government for developing its nations. Taxes
are allocated for various kinds of essential matters. Firstly, they are used for expanding and
maintaining public transportation facilities, such expanding roads and highways, and replacing
old public transportation units. Secondly, taxes are utilised for providing decent medical services
and basic educations for their residents. And last but not least, taxes are also used for funding
military services, which is important for maintaining the political stability of a nation.
And then, people should also notice that taxes that they have paid, will also be beneficial for
themselves sooner or later. Some of the funds that have been collected by tax authorities are used
for retirement funds. It means that in the end people will enjoy and benefit some personal
facilities from the government, which are funded from taxes. Therefore people should not keep
their earnings to themselves and they should comply in paying their tax duties and obligations.
In conclusion, I do not agree if we should keep all our income and not pay any taxes to the
government, as taxes are beneficial for the development of the people and the nation themselves.
Higher education is funded in several ways: all costs of higher education are paid by the
government; all costs are paid by the student; all costs are paid by students with a
government loan which must be repaid after graduation. What are the benefits of these
ways and which one is the best?
I tend to agree that that the academic qualifications are necessary to improve your career and get
more income especially in those jobs need well-educated staff. However, tuitions could be either
fully covered or subsidized by governments or civil institutions.
Initially, when you study in a university that means you will lose job opportunities to assist you
in the life. Whereas, you are suffering from time pressure to meet study requirements with a part
time job to earn some money to cover the university tuition. Therefore, Years of study should be
accounted when employers offer a work for who has a university degree. In addition, the
changing and the developments in the life have made jobs and works more and more complicated
particularly in certain areas medical, engineering, or accounting to name but a few. Those led us
to carry on our study after school to be able to fill the positions even they take a long period. So
their efforts and difficulties they faced should be compensated through higher benefits.
In contrast, Students need to help by society to pay all of study cost. If we don't assist them, we
will lose huge energies of talented can change our future. Consequently, governments have
responsibilities against citizens towards their education taking into account its investment in the
coming generation. From other side, After financial crisis , in particular, people can't afford more
living expenses which affects on their decision to enroll universities or not.
To conclude, there are vital factors supporting the statement that qualified people should be paid
more wages because of their efforts in studying at university. As well as, many critical jobs need
skilled and educated workers which mean paying more money to attract them. On the contrary,
alumni should not put up with highly cost of study when governments or parents could play this
role.
Money for postgraduate research is limited. Some people, therefore, think that financial
support from government should be only provided for scientific research rather than
research for less useful subjects. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
With limited public funding, many countries tend to give priorities to research for "hard sciences"
rather than "soft sciences." This does not necessarily mean that the former is the only
experimental development that counts, nor that the latter refers to apparently less useful subjects.
While research on the both can benefit society as a whole in different ways, it is possible that
research on such "hard" subjects as biology, chemistry and physics requires a larger share of
financial support from governments.
In search for knowledge, a postgraduate research project in any academic disciplines costs money
to make a difference, so public funding should not be provided exclusively for whatever research.
The definition of research, in the broadest sense of the word, includes any gathering of data and
facts for the advancement of non-scientific as well as strictly scientific knowledge. It is because
the research results in the "soft" fields known as social studies are concerned with society and
human behavior. That is to say, social science is the study of society and the manner in which
people behave influences the world around us. Indeed, unlike scientists dedicated to "hard"
subjects, researchers in social studies actually influence our lives without our being aware they
are doing so. Hence, it is not exactly fair to think that research on social studies should not need
public funding simply for being considered as less useful subjects.
Research on social studies attempts to provide useful information for us. For example, it
redefines the role of government in an increasingly market-based society and helps to make
national health service function. This kind of research can enhance the understanding of human
behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior. Even though not in similar ways, people in
general benefit from social studies as much as from scientific research, whether you are a parent,
a teacher, a local councilor, a police officer or a business executive. At this point, we may ask
ourselves this question: should governments entirely ignore the importance of research on less
useful subjects and therefore refuse to give financial support? The answer: it is advisable not to
underestimate the practical value from postgraduate research on subjects like economics,
psychology, criminology, education, and international relations, to name only a few.
It becomes clear that governments should not only provide funding for scientific research but also
support experimental development for "non-scientific" research. Both kinds of research are
essential to society in progress. Accordingly, it is always good to remember that research for
physics, chemistry and biology carries more weight and usually deserves more public money;
neverhtless, it is also important not to forget research for less useful subjects.
Some people believe that charity organizations should give aid to those in greatest need,
wherever they live. Other people believe that charity organizations should concentrate on
the people in their own country. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Globalisation has become and irreversible trend, which can be shown in different aspects,
including international aid. while some people claim charity organisation should focus on
residents in their own countries, I would argue their responsibility should go beyond that.
Obviously, the whole world is developing into an international community and a variety of
resources are increasingly shared by global citizens as fuel energy, education and medical
services. If charities could lend a help to those foreigners who are in desperate help, they would
give their support in return once in need and this would go beyond the individual level or
organisational level to the national level, which means recipient countries may also help donor
countries in corresponding perspectives.
Another point is that delivering international aid can also help to establish a good reputation
globally, especially when some natural disasters happen, which also displays the principle of
humanitarianism. Some disasters are inevitable and it is still quite common to see the reports in
respect to was and other calamities. Although we can hardly prevent these tragedies, there is
something we can do to relieve the situation and charities should take the responsibility.
On the other hand, those who maintain aid from charity organisations should be restricted to their
own people deem that resources are limited and helping people overseas may harm the interest of
their own country, For instance, developing countries are still concerned about their own
development in the aspects of finance or even food and clothing. Without the help from charities,
those living in poor areas would face starving and poverty.
From my perspective of view, international aid should be encouraged and charity organisations
should take the responsibility of helping those who are in need regardless of their nationalities.
Nevertheless, if it conflicts with their own interests to a great extent, they should ensure the well-
being of their own people first.
VII. Du lịch
Some people think foreign visitors should be charged more than local people when they visit
the cultural and historical attractions in a country. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
It is sometimes argued that tourists from overseas should be charged more than local residents to
visit important sites and monuments. I completely disagree with this idea.
The argument in favour of higher prices for foreign tourists would be that cultural or historical
attractions often depend on state subsidies to keep them going, which means that the resident
population already pays money to these sites through the tax system. However, I believe this to
be a very shortsighted view. Foreign tourists contribute to the economy of the host country with
the money they spend on a wide range of goods and services, including food, souvenirs,
accommodation and travel. The governments and inhabitants of every country should be happy to
subsidise important tourist sites and encourage people from the rest of the world to visit them.
If travellers realised that they would have to pay more to visit historical and cultural attractions in
a particular nation, they would perhaps decide not to go to that country on holiday. To take the
UK as an example, the tourism industry and many related jobs rely on visitors coming to the
country to see places like Windsor Castle or Saint Paul’s Cathedral. These two sites charge the
same price regardless of nationality, and this helps to promote the nation’s cultural heritage. If
overseas tourists stopped coming due to higher prices, there would be a risk of insufficient
funding for the maintenance of these important buildings.
In conclusion, I believe that every effort should be made to attract tourists from overseas, and it
would be counterproductive to make them pay more than local residents.
(269 words, band 9)
Some people think that it is necessary to travel abroad to learn about other countries, but
other people think that it is not necessary to travel abroad because all the information can
be seen at TV and the Internet. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
It is irrefutable that nowadays, because of technology, arm-chair tourism through which we can
see all the information on television and the internet, has gained popularity. However, I disagree,
that travelling abroad will no longer be needed. In fact, I believe that the popularity of foreign
travel will grow even further due to publicity these places get because of TV and the internet.
First of all, computers can never replace real places. No matter how real and vivid computer
images are, they are only images and can never be likened to the historical objects and natural
wonders that we see in real or even might be allowed to touch with our fingertips. The difference
can be compared to seeing the picture of a mango rather than actually eating it.
Secondly, visiting other countries is a rewarding experience in many respects. For one thing, it is
a good exercise. When we make the trip to a foreign country then we visit the places of interest
there, we get some exercise which does a lot of good to our health. We generally go with family
and friends and enjoy a lot. We also learn about the culture and tradition of the place. All this
broadens our horizons which can never be done by the passive activity of seeing something on
the computer screen. At the same time we also get a chance to spread the good points of our own
culture also.
Finally, I believe that after seeing these countries on TV or the internet, our craving to actually
see these increases even more and so we make efforts to go and see these places. This can be
proved by the overwhelming number of tourists to these places that has been increasing year after
year. At certain times, especially when it is temporarily impossible for us to visit other countries
in person, we can get a rough picture of what those countries are like. However, what we see
from a computer screen is, after all, not exactly the same as what we see and feel with our own
eyes on site.
In conclusion, arm-chair tourism is there today but international travel will still be needed.
Countries are becoming more and more similar because people are able to buy the same
products anywhere in the world. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?
Countries are becoming more and more similar because people are able to buy the same products
anywhere in the world. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?
It is true that the globalization has made the world a global village and the countries are lot more
similar than ever before. These days, people can have the same items from any part of the world,
use same technologies, construct similar buildings, buy costumes of international brands and
develop infrastructure which are built and designed by international companies. A number of
factors have led to this situation, and, this trend, in my opinion, is greatly desirable due to various
reasons.
To start with, people can purchase the most international branded items from their home country
as almost all global products are available in a country that has allowed free international trades.
This situation creates a tough competitive environment in the market and companies try to
introduce new inventions to attract more people. So people get better choices of products with
higher quality as well as in affordable price. For example, Toyota, a well known car company of
Japan has a lot of outlets in India, which is much more helpful for Indians to buy these branded
cars without wasting travel expense to Japan. The branded costumes, cars, and other items makes
people and streets look similar and I think this declines the discrimination in the world.
Second, global companies nowadays design and build many infrastructures and those are similar
in looking. Apart from that, popularity of Hollywood movies and Western celebrities inspire
people all over the world to follow a similar fashion trend. This also contributes to the declining
of differences among nations. This is helpful for people visiting and staying in a different county.
They do not feel much difference in their experience in living in a totally different county.
Again, this trend helps to foster the migration of individuals to various places in the world.
Besides, this also reduces the adjustment difficulties people usually face when living in a new
place. For instance, Chinese people can consume their traditional dishes, even though they live in
India, England, the USA or Australia.
In contrast, the globalization, which makes the world look like a global village, often causes the
loss of cultures and diversity of many countries. But considering the advantages it brings is we
have no other way than to accept this modern phenomenon. This may negatively affect the local
business owing to the larger influence and availability of branded items among common people.
However, in the long run the local products get higher quality and can also spread its business
opportunity globally.
To conclude, globalization and similar way to life in different countries have made life far
luxurious and more comfortable than in the past, despite some problems. So I hope this
phenomenon is likely to continue with more acceptances among people.
International travel makes people prejudiced rather than broad-minded. do you agree or
disagree?
International travel is regarded as one of the finest ways of broadening one’s outlook by
understanding the diversity of different places, the people, their culture and lifestyle. On the
downside, international travel has also led tourists to become biased and cold instead of receptive
and indulgent.
One of the primary causes aiding this unwanted outcome is that what is considered sacred in one
place may not hold any value for the tourists. In Arab countries, for instance, women are required
to wear a burka or unrevealing clothes, and western women, not realizing the importance of being
fully clad, may develop an aversion as to why women in these countries are treated the way they
are. And visa-versa, a tourist hailing from a reserved background may not identify with the
western culture, and feel appalled by the lifestyle of people there through not knowing better.
Research prior to the trip can resolve this, or if there is a tour guide or organizer, they must take it
upon themselves to educate the tourists about the local values and culture in a way that they
understand and empathise rather than look down upon it.
Stereotyping is another significant cause of prejudice among tourists. The source of stereotyping
is media portrayal of certain countries, places and people which is why tourists have
preconceived negative opinions about these places when they arrive. Without really getting to
know the local people, a trip may just accentuate these views. Awareness is the only cure to break
the stereotypes and for this interaction amongst the local people and the tourists must be rallied
by encouraging home stays so that the differences between reality and media portrayal can come
to the surface.
In conclusion, international tourism does have its problems which can lead to prejudiced views.
However, efforts in the right direction can overcome them.
VIII. Văn hoá nghệ thuật
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.
(261 words, band 9)
At present, science has been developing at a high speed, but people still have a high opinion
of artists. What can the arts tell us of the life that science cannot?
There is no doubt that the quality of our lives in the 21st century has been greatly improved by
various scientific and technological advances. Despite this, the arts and humanities too still have
much to teach us about ourselves and life in general.
One area in which we can learn from the arts is that concepts such as beauty matter in and of
themselves, whereas in the world of science and technology the only true measure is whether
something works or not. This is a limited view of the world and the arts differ in that they offer
us an alternative and more spiritual outlook. For example, if we listen to Mozart we can learn
about harmony and joy through the medium of music or if even we read an author like PG
Wodehouse we learn about the value of humour. These essential aspects of life are absent from
the clinical world of science and technology.
The other way in which artists can teach us more about life is that enjoying art encourages the
habit of self-reflection. If you walk into an art gallery, attend a concert or even just stay in to read
a book, you will almost certainly begin to think about your inner values. For me, this is a
invaluable lesson in life because if we begin to reflect about ourselves, we begin not just to
become more human, but also consider the lives of others too.
So while science and technology may have made our physical lives more comfortable in the 21st
century. It remains true that the arts and humanities are still absolutely necessary for ordinary
people as they promote a more spiritual and reflective view of life that is essential to our
humanity.
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.
(258 words)
Many people prefer to watch foreign films rather than locally produced films. Why could
this be?
Should governments give more financial support to local film industries?
It is true that foreign films are more popular in many countries than domestically produced films.
There could be several reasons why this is the case, and I believe that governments should
promote local film-making by subsidising the industry.
There are various reasons why many people find foreign films more enjoyable than the films
produced in their own countries. Firstly, the established film industries in certain countries have
huge budgets for action, special effects and to shoot scenes in spectacular locations. Hollywood
blockbusters like ‘Avatar’ or the James Bond films are examples of such productions, and their
global appeal is undeniable. Another reason why these big-budget films are so successful is that
they often star the most famous actors and actresses, and they are made by the most accomplished
producers and directors. The poor quality, low-budget filmmaking in many countries suffers in
comparison.
In my view, governments should support local film industries financially. In every country, there
may be talented amateur film-makers who just need to be given the opportunity to prove
themselves. To compete with big-budget productions from overseas, these people need money to
pay for film crews, actors and a host of other costs related to producing high-quality films. If
governments did help with these costs, they would see an increase in employment in the film
industry, income from film sales, and perhaps even a rise in tourist numbers. New Zealand, for
example, has seen an increase in tourism related to the 'Lord of the Rings' films, which were
partly funded by government subsidies.
In conclusion, I believe that increased financial support could help to raise the quality of locally
made films and allow them to compete with the foreign productions that currently dominate the
market.
(294 words, band 9)
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.
IX. Đời sống
Some people believe that giving a weekly allowance will help children to develop good
spending habits. Do you agree or disagree?
Parents have been teaching their kids making budget and to decide spending choices through a
weekly allowance for last many years. In recent time, it has become a controversial question
whether this trend will help the children to learn some monetary management of life or will
hinder their development in other ways by diverting them. There are good arguments on both the
sides. But in my point of view, this can help them a far more if given under some proper
guidance and supervision. My essay will give some strong reasons to support my view. Let me
elaborate in detail.
First of all, providing allowances to kids will give them a chance to understand how money
works, and to learn how to carefully monitor their budget. For instance, I was provided a small
amount of money as my pocket money every week in my childhood. That small sum of money
gave me a sense of independence. Because I always had a small amount with me, I did not have
to ask him every time I needed to buy a book, pencil or things like that. I also learned the
importance of spending money wisely. As I was getting only a small allowance, I had to limit my
spending. I had to spend money only on things that was absolutely necessary. Moreover, this will
teach them to prioritize their choices, like what to buy and what not to or what to buy first and
what to later. In addition this will develop money saving habit in children as well. So in my
opinion, giving kids allowance is a good idea which can teach them money management or will
help them in learning spending choices, which will be very much helpful in later life.
On the flip side, allowance systems are effective only when they afford the possibility for
discussions about their expenses within the family, such as why, where and how the kids are
spending this money. Sometimes giving too much money to kids can spoil them or make them
pervert. Many parents who have high disposable incomes commit this mistake. Kids are too
young to understand what is necessary and what is not so if they get a lot of money without
supervision, they are invariably going to splurge. They might even get into harmful habits like
smoking, drinking and gambling. So I think what parents should do is to give a small amount that
would meet the day-to-day needs of their children. Parents must also monitor what their kids are
doing with that money.
All in all, giving weekly allowances to children will give them a good chance to understand how
money works as well as teach them value of money and can develop habit of saving money but
this all can only be possible with proper supervision. So I support the idea to give allowances to
kids but with a condition of enough supervision. (486 Words)
In many countries traditional foods are replaced by international fast foods. This is having
a negative effect on families and societies. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Eating fast food has become a commonplace for the general public in this day and age. People are
enjoying the fast service and delicious food products, such as KFC and pizza-hut. However, I am
of the opinion that this phenomenon has negative impact on domestic lives as well as
communities.
Firstly, the proliferation of fast food satisfies the needs of working families who are characterized
by irregular working hours, allowing them to eat at anytime and anywhere. Despite the
convenience of international franchised food industry, the consumption of this type of food
would undermine the family bond. People are less likely to spend on time family meal. Since
cooking at home allows family members to gather frequently and exchange their opinions on the
table, and most likely, to resolve the conflicts among the different family members. In the
contrast, if people choose not to eat at home habitually, this would probably weaken their
emotional ties between each other.
Secondly, in spite of the economic benefits that stems from fast food chain, such as the increasing
demand for meat products, it has inevitably posed a threat to the society. For one, the
consumption of fast food is believed to have a strong correlation with healthy issue. For example,
compared to traditional cooking method which emphasize a balanced diet, fast food such as fried
chicken are regarded as one of the key contributing factors to obesity and overweight. For
another, the cultural erosion can be partially attributed to fast food. Since young people are less
likely to be exposed to authentic family meal. As a result, traditional cooking skills and culture
may be on the brink of extinction with the passage of the time.
In conclusion, fast food does not only pose threats to family relationship, but also to people’s
health and cultural aspects, although it has changed our living patterns and stimulated the local
economy.
The speeding up of life in areas such as travel and communications is negatively affecting
the society at every level --- individual, national, and global. Do you agree or disagree?
It is irrefutable that the IT revolution and faster means of travel have affected society at all levels.
However, I disagree that all these effects are negative. The society has also benefitted
enormously from this speeding up of life which in other words we can say globalization.
At the individual level, we have more choices, more opportunities to travel, better job prospects
and more awareness and tolerance of other cultures. Due to better communication, people are
connected with their near and dear ones and distances are no longer a barrier. There has been a
fall in face-to-face communication but the social network of friends that the young generation of
today has is far more than ever before in the history of mankind.
At the national level, countries are getting closer and the boundaries are disappearing. Because of
this fast era of today, nations are developing strong bonds doing successful trade with each other.
The rich nations are opening Multi National Companies in developing countries and thus
providing job opportunities to millions. This is narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor.
No doubt the people working in such companies are underpaid but it is definitely better than
being unemployed. Because of this the economies of the poor countries are improving.
At the global level, nations are joining hands to fight evils such as poverty, disease, terrorism and
global warming. Who has not heard of the Kyoto Protocol. The major feature of the Kyoto
Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community
for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
To conclude, I pen down saying that, the accelerating pace of life has both negative as well as
positive effects. However, the positive effects are much more than negative effects.
In many cities an increasing number of people do not know their neighbours and there is a
lack of a sense of community. What are the causes of this problem? How can it be solved?
One disturbing trend nowadays is the weakened sense of community in our cities. The two
principal causes of this are in my view how our schools and shopping habits have changed. In
this essay I discuss these problems and also how they might be solved to ensure we once again
know our neighbours.
There is a clear connection between education and community. In the past people got to know
their neighbours through their children and formed close bonds watching them play sport
together or just helping out with childcare. Unfortunately, this connection has been broken in
cities by allowing children to go any school and not the one in the neighbourhood with the effect
that local children do not necessarily go to the same school. The easy solution to thisproblem
would simply be to make sure that children in cities went to the local school in their district.
The change in shopping habits has also had a profound effect on community relations in cities. In
the past people would shop at their local market or main street, but now they increasingly use
supermarkets that are located on the edge of cities. This means that people no longer meet people
who live in their neighbourhood as they go shopping and it has also led to a loss in community
identity. The best way to solve this problem would be for the government to raise taxation on the
large supermarkets and to reduce it for local businesses in order to bring back local markets and
shops.
In conclusion I believe that the best way for governments to address the problem of loss of
community spirit in cities would be to introduce measures that encouraged people to educate their
children locally and to help more local businesses and shops to flourish.
No man is an island’ – goes the adage. We are all surrounded by others – our peers – people
our age who have experiences and interests similar to ours. We make dozens of decisions
everyday and are influenced by each other’s choices and behaviors. Similarly, young people
are influenced by peers because they want to fit in, be like peers they admire, do what
others are doing, or have what others have. No one is immune to peer pressure. Peer
pressure can be both, positive as well as negative but mostly it is positive.
On the positive side, peers set plenty of good examples for each other. If peers are committed
doing well in school or doing their best in a sport then they can influence those around them to be
more goal-oriented, too. Secondly, peers who are kind and loyal can influence others to build
these qualities in themselves. What is more, peers can help each other make decisions such as
what courses to take and even how to handle a family argument. Peers often give each other good
advice. Peers might get each other involved in clubs, sports, or religious groups. One’s world
would be far less rich without peers to encourage or to offer moral support when one needs it
most.
On the negative side sometimes, peers may pressurize each other into doing something wrong,
such as shoplifting, taking drugs or drinking or taking dangerous risks when driving a car. Nearly
everyone ends up in a sticky peer pressure situation at some point. Young people are going
through a lot of stress in their life as it is the time when the most crucial decisions of life have to
be taken such as pursuing a career or choosing a life partner. It is very easy at such times to
succumb to negative peer pressure.
Responding to peer pressure is part of human nature — but some people are more likely to give
in, and others are better able to resist and stand their ground. I firmly believe that the stress of
resisting unhealthy peer pressure can be buffered by good family relationships and a high self-
esteem. So, the onus falls on the parents to give a stable family atmosphere and talk to their
children about peer pressure. Explain what a powerful force it can be, and tell them that the
excuse that “Everyone did it” will never be accepted and that they will be held responsible for
their actions.
In conclusion, I believe that, peer pressure is inevitable and it can be positive as well as negative.
However, if parents teach their children how to handle negative peer pressure, it can be largely
positive.
X. Vấn đề xã hội
Should old man live with young people together, or should they live in the clubs for old
men? Please discuss.
Many countries and governments are much concerned about the situation confronting us,
especially how old men can live a happy life. Under this circumstance, many old-man clubs
bamboo up with the view to providing old men a better place to settle down. In my opinion, I
think this is a good practice to solve old-man problem.
Firstly, many young people are quite busy now. They devote themselves wholly to their work and
life, so that they cannot spare enough time to stay with their parents. Old-man clubs can offer
bounteous food and entertainment facilities to the old people, rendering them a happy life there.
In the old-man clubs, they can also make some new companions and friends and establish good
relation with them.
Secondly, with the acceleration of people's living tempo, many young people are facing heavy
pressure from the society, their work and families. If they live together with their parents, they
will shoulder the responsibility to care for them and their pressure will become heavier and
heavier. Old-man club relieves the heavy burden of them and makes them concentrate on their
work fully.
Finally, old-man club can also give careful medical to the old people. If old men live with their
family, they are not ensured to be sent to the hospital immediately after they get ill. In the old-
man clubs, they can get good medical care and recover soon. However, everything has double
folds. Sometimes, old people feel very lonely because they often think of their daughters, sons
and grandchildren. They prefer family atmosphere.
To sum up, I think the appearance of old-man clubs is a good thing for old people. It provides the
old people with a better environment. But old-man clubs are not a paradise definitely, which is a
compromise to family intimation.
(310 words totally)
Nowadays, some workplaces tend to employ equal numbers of men and women workers. Do
you think it is a positive or negative development?
Traditional male dominated workplaces are decreasing nowadays and some workplaces are
giving jobs to equal number of men and women. I believe that this is a negative development. In
the following paragraphs, I shall put forth my arguments to support my views.
My first argument is that reserving half the seats for women could lead to negative discrimination
against men. Both men and women should have the same right to choose their profession. People
should be chosen for jobs based on their skills, qualification and character. Gender should not
come in the way of the selection process. Having a fixed quota would mean that some qualified
men might be denied a job while some unqualified women would be given one.
Secondly, considering today’s scenario, this quota might go against women. It has been seen in
the recent years that more and more women are opting for higher education. For example, thirty
years ago, in a typical class of any medical college, girls were far less as compared to girls.
Today, the situation is reversed. This means that today some workplaces could be dominated by
women. So, having a reservation in the workplace could mar the chances of deserving women.
With high levels of education, even the highest positions in science, politics or law, for example,
can be held successfully by women. Women have proved their mettle in many jobs traditionally
thought to be the domain of men. Who has not heard of our IPS officer Kiran Bedi? Therefore,
such a quota is not needed by the women of today.
Finally, it could be said that having a quota would not ensure moving towards an egalitarian
society where all are considered equal. Those who tend to discriminate against women would
find some other ways to discriminate such as by underpaying the women at the same posts as
men.
To conclude, I pen down saying that, the trend of employing an equal number of men and women
in the workplace is a negative development because it could lead to negative discrimination
against men, it may boomerang against women and it is not needed by the women of today.
Some people think that men and women have different qualities. Therefore, some certain
jobs are suitable for men and some jobs are suitable for women. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?
Some people think that women and men have different strengths and weaknesses and as a result
of that some certain jobs are suitable for men and some certain jobs are suitable for women. I do
not agree with this opinion.
Before the Second World War, the labour force was dominated by the males. Female workers
could find a very little area in the job market to work but during and after the Second World War
producers needed waste amount of labour force to keep their facilities running. Because of a
certain number of men was in the military services, they started to hire female workers.
Especially in the USA. This was the first time which the female workers show they can do the
same job with male workers.
After the following years, female workers became more qualified and they started to penetrate
higher positions. In the seventies and eighties, females were all over the job market and in any
position. That shows us that if they have given opportunities, women can do any job which a man
can do.
Some people thought that the women have physical weaknesses according to men and that
prevented to do jobs which need physical endurance. That opinion is old fashioned and wrong. In
the times of Second World War nearly all the jobs which needed physical endurance were getting
done by the women in the USA and also in the USSR- before the Soviet Union had collapsed,
even the mining operations were getting done by the women. Another example in the same kind
of situation is about the textile business. In the 19th century, the labour force in textile works was
dominated by the men but today women have outnumbered men in that area.
Other tan this opinion, some people believe that the man can't do the jobs which need gentleness.
This idea is also wrong. The best example of the wrongness of this idea is kindergarten teachers
and nurses. In the seventies and eighties, there were nearly no male kindergarten teachers or
nurses, even in the well-developed countries like USA or Canada but after nineties men started to
work as kindergarten teachers or nurses. Today, even in the developing countries like Turkey or
Mexico you can see many male kindergarten teachers or nurses. In the republic of Ireland, a man
who is a former tax lawyer is trying to be Olympic synchronised swimmer and that shows us the
gender is not an issue about doing a job.
As a conclusion, in today’s world women and men can capable of doing any jobs. Excluding a
male or a female from a certain profession because of his or her gender doesn't have any logical
reason. Believing a gender is not a suitable for a certain job is just an out fashioned thought.
There is no limitation for the men and women in the job market except prejudice.
It is more important for a building to serve a purpose than to look beautiful. Architects
shouldn’t worry about producing building as a work of art. Do you agree or disagree?
Buildings, not very different from other commodities, perform various functions and serve
varying needs of their users. At the centre of the controversy is whether the purposes of a
building should be placed above its aesthetical values. As far as I am concerned, these two
qualities are not conflicting, but mutually beneficial.
In a modern society, aesthetical considerations are no longer considered as insignificant or luxury

but have been integrated as a core function of a building. People have comprehensive
requirements or a building. No longer limited to such ordinary functions, such as safety,
durability, space, access to facilities, their interests involve decorative details and visual qualities,
including ornamentation and furnishings. In simple terms, a pedestrian-looking building is bound
to mismatch the trend of the market.
Meanwhile, it is worth mentioning that some types of buildings are broadly expected by the
public to possess aesthetical values. Standard examples include restaurants, theatres, churches
and so forth. A building falling in these categories desires a design of originality andrarity,
aiming to distinguish itself from other constructions of its kind or those in its surroundings.
Architects’ inspirations add values to the building and increase itsmarketability. Many buildings
have become symbolic in the city or region where they are located.
When being concerned with the aesthetic aspect of architecture, people should consider economic
feasibility. The focus on the exterior of a building alone will lead to the increase in construction
cost, making such an endeavour unjustified. In those cities where overpopulation continues to be
a problem and many people cannot afford housing, whether a building looks beautiful would not
be taken seriously. In that situation, the rationaleis to accommodate a huge population, rather than
simply please the eye.
Based on the arguments outlined above, adding visual appeals to a building is consistent with the
needs of a modern society. However, it does not mean that the concern on aesthetics should be at
the expense of a building’s practical functions; on the contrary, a building should be the result of
the delicate balance between the two ideals.
Many governments think that economic progress is their most important goal. Some people,
however, think that other types of progress are equally important for a country.  Discuss
both these views and give your own opinion.
People have different views about how governments should measure their countries’ progress.
While economic progress is of course essential, I agree with those who believe that other
measures of progress are just as important.
There are three key reasons why economic growth is seen as a fundamental goal for countries.
Firstly, a healthy economy results in job creation, a high level of employment, and better salaries
for all citizens. Secondly, economic progress ensures that more money is available for
governments to spend on infrastructure and public services. For example, a government with
higher revenues can invest in the country's transport network, its education system and its
hospitals. Finally, a strong economy can help a country’s standing on the global stage, in terms of
its political influence and trading power.
However, I would argue that various other forms of progress are just as significant as the
economic factors mentioned above. In particular, we should consider the area of social justice,
human rights, equality and democracy itself. For example, the treatment of minority groups is
often seen as a reflection of the moral standards and level of development of a society. Perhaps
another key consideration when judging the progress of a modern country should be how well
that country protects the natural environment, and whether it is moving towards environmental
sustainability. Alternatively, the success of a nation could be measured by looking at the health,
well-being and happiness of its residents.
In conclusion, the economy is obviously a key marker of a country’s success, but social,
environmental and health criteria are equally significant. (262 words, band 9)

48 Bài Mẫu IELTS Writing Task 2 Band 90 Của Thầy Simon PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

48 Bài Mẫu IELTS Writing Task 2 Band 90 Của Thầy Simon PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trung tâm luyện thi IELTS Fighter - Ngọc Cúc tổng hợp -

- Nhà báo. - Thế vận hội Olympic ưu và nhược

- Thí nghiệm động vật - Vai trò của âm nhạc

Chúc các bạn học tốt!

- Ngọc Cúc | IELTS Fighter –

Groups: IETLS Fighter – Hỗ trợ học tập

they say at all.

 Gain knowledge and experience

(270 words, band 9)

An increase in production of consumer goods results in damage of the natural environment.

In conclusion, I believe that, consumerism is rampant nowadays and it is having a detrimental

This assertion is fundamentally right, because of the incomparable advantages of advanced

(271 words, band 9)

(269 words, band 9)

(261 words, band 9)

Should governments give more financial support to local film industries?

(310 words totally)

In a modern society, aesthetical considerations are no longer considered as insignificant or luxury

You might also like