Young people should spend more time on cultural activities such as

music and theatre and less time on sport. How far do you agree with this
statement?

People have different views about what young individuals should concentrate
more on if they have free time. While there are some benefits of spending
time on cultural activities, I would argue that it is better for people to take
place in outdoor activities.
On the one hand, cultural activities have several advantages for youngsters
both in entertaining and education. Firstly, it is good for the health of mind
and spirit. These days, with the fast pace of modern life, people can be easily
stressed because of work pressure and to reduce stress, they can listen to
music which helps them to ease their mind, put down their pressure and relax
after hard work. Secondly, when the youth participates in cultural festivals or
programs related to culture, they can enrich their knowledge about customs,
conventions, or beliefs of that culture. For example, if Vietnamese people join
in a historic show of Vietnam, they are not only listening and watching but
also know more about things that happened in the past and discover why
certain events happened.
On the other hand, there are some reasons why people should spend more
time playing sport. First, sport gives youngsters the chance to exercise, which
is important for their health. It can help them to keep in good shape, build
endurance and strengthen resistance. As a result, people seem to be stronger,
more active, and energetic. Furthermore, physical activities teach the youth
how to co-operate and work with other people in different conditions
Therefore, youngsters can improve their life skills such as teamwork skill,
time management skill, and problem-solving.
In conclusion, while spending time in cultural activities is beneficial to some
extent, I believe choosing to take part in physical activities is a better option.
The table illustrates the proportion of national consumer expenditure on different categories among five
nations in 2002.

Overall, people in five countries pay the most for food, drinks, and tobacco while allocating the smallest
portions of their budget to leisure and education.

In five different countries, the spending on food, drinks, and tobacco of Turkey and Ireland was
significantly higher than that of the others, at 32,14% and 28,91% respectively. Meanwhile, the figure
for Italy, Spain, and Sweden having the smallest rate at 15,77%.

Compared to food, drinks, and tobacco, the expenditure for clothing and footwear was substantially
lower. All five countries spent under 10% of their budget and Turkey, Spain Ireland expended relatively
the same and below 75% The smallest percentage of spending was allocated for leisure and education
While Turkey has the highest rate of national consumer expenditure at 4,35%, the lowest figure can be
seen in Spain at only 1,98%.

The line graph below shows the percentage of tourists to Scotland who visited four different attractions
in Edinburgh.
The chart illustrates the proportion of tourists to Scotland who visited Edinburgh attractions from 1980
to 2010.

Looking at the graph, it is clear that the aquarium was the most significant change in its total rate over
the period shown. Additionally, while the percentage of castle and zoo increased that of festival and
aquarium decreased.

In 1980, the percentage of festival tourists in Scotland was highest, at 30%. Meanwhile, the figure for
the castle was slightly lower, at 25%; compared to 20% visitors in the aquarium. However, only 10% of
tourists visited the zoo, which was the lowest figure among four attractions.

The period from 1980 to 2010 witnessed a marginal decrease in the rate of castle tourists, with nearly
30%. However, the figure for festival dropped moderately to about 26%. There has been a substantial
decline in the proportion of visitors to the zoo, with 20%, whereas the percentage of aquarium tourists
fell considerably to approximately 8% over a period of 30 years.
It is generally believed that some people are born with certain
talents, for instance for sport or music, and others are not. However,
it is sometimes claimed that any child can be taught to become a
good sports person or musician.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

People have different views about what makes a person become a

talented individual. While there are some benefits of having natural
talent, I would argue that it is possible for a person to become an
excellent achiever by proper training and hard work.

On the one hand, natural talents have several advantages. Firstly, talent
is an inborn gift for a particular activity. People can easily learn, as they
acquire skills readily with less hard work or practice than the average
person. For instance, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a musical prodigy, has
a natural sense of melody that he can rewrite the lyrics based on memory
after just two listenings. Secondly, talent can boost maximum potential.
So even without working so hard, talent can help a person to reach
further and greater in life.

On the other hand, there are some reasons why a child can be taught to
become a good sports person or musician. Someone can be good at
something, but through hard work, they can become great at the same
thing. Hard work is the strengthening factor that keep you going and
performing at high levels for prolonged periods. Some people who have
achieved greatness, like guitar player Paul Gibert managed to achieve
his status through hard work. If people are not willing to put in the work
to harvest and cultivate their talent, then the talent itself is essentially
useless.

In conclusion, while having talent is beneficial to some extent, I believe

people can achieve proficiency in sport or music by determination and
perseverance.