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.

In the past few decades, the economy has been widely considered by many governments to be the most
crucial factor contributing to a country’s success. However, others argue that many other aspects should
also be paid more attention. In this essay, I will analyze both these ideas and state my opinion.

On the one hand, economic progress plays an important role in helping a country develop and be
independent. The first reason for my belief is that only when a country is wealthy can its people be
taken care of properly. That is to say, people living in many parts of the world are still having difficulties
while trying to fulfill their family’s needs. For example, citizens who live in rural, underdeveloped areas
cannot afford going to hospitals or sending their children to schools due to a lack of these facilities. By
focusing on improving the economy, a country can significantly change its people’s lives by providing
healthcare and educational centers. The second cause is that being financially independent, a nation is
more likely to hold important positions when it comes to worldwide organizations. As globalization is
increasingly being taken advantage of, regional and global organizations are being established to help
countries co-operate and improve their economic abilities. As a result, those who know how to fully
exploit their abilities will stand a better chance of monopolizing larger parts of the world’s trade,
thereby benefiting their citizens. Thus, the economy is of great importance when it comes to a country’s
success.

On the other hand, it is believed by many that other aspects ought to be given the same amount of
attention. The most vital cause for this might be that environmental protection is equally essential for
the well-being of people and food security of a country. As climate change is causing more and more
glaciers to melt in the two poles, many regions in the world are facing land loss. Consequently, this will
lead to thousands of people losing their houses and land for growing crops being submerged
underwater. In order to prevent this from further threatening a country, its government needs to focus
more on preserving the environment and reducing its harmful impacts. The second-most essential cause
is that the education of the younger generations should also be taken into consideration. In the last few
decades, the communication technology has dramatically developed, resulting in rapid globalization.
Although this process is usually considered advantageous, it can also cause a country to lose its unique
culture. By focusing on teaching cultural background to young people, a nation is more likely to maintain
the features that distinguish them from the other countries. Thus, environmental preservation and
education of the future generations are of equal significance.

To sum up, it is undeniable that a country needs to pay attention to many different factors that are
unequivocally essential for its success. From my perspective, the government is responsible for
examining all of the aspects before deciding how to distribute their focus.
It is important for children to learn the difference between right and wrong at an early age.
Punishment is necessary to help them learn this distinction.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

What sort of punishments should parents and teachers be allowed to use to teach good behavior to
children?

Finding an effective way to educate the offspring has never failed to escape parents' concern. While
many people assume that punishment is essential in the process of teaching children about the right and
the wrong, I assert that this method is unnecessary for certain types of youngsters and that parents as
well as schools are expected to use only appropriate punishment.

To begin with, the significance of punishment when dealing with small youngsters is undeniable. That is
to say, on the grounds that humans, especially the impressionable young ones, are likely to memorise
the lessons better with the occurrence of punishment, applying this way of teaching might be effective
to help the young children bear the distinction of right and wrong better in mind. For instance, provided
a child is beaten whenever he does something wrong, there is a high likelihood that the fear of being
beaten will prevent him from reoffending. However, to some types of youngsters who can not acquire
any knowledge through punishment, it is best to praise their morally-correct actions and nicely explain
the wrong ones instead of using any kind of discipline. Forcing the use of punishment on those young
children can only be counter effective. For that reason, punishment needs to be utilized flexibly
depending on the young ones' character.

As for the appropriate punishments for the young, parents and schools should only be allowed to deliver
the lessons without corporal punishment. On the family side, one proposed way is to ban the children
from doing their usual preferable activities. These can be prohibiting the use of electrical devices, going
outside or visiting their favorite places. Not being able to satisfy the need of having fun, youngsters
would be demotivated from being rebellious and disobedient. Another effective method is asking them
to finish the chores for a period of time. Not only does it help cleaning the accommodations but the
children can also learn the lessons at the same time. On the school side, educational institutions can
force their students to do more assignments or read relatable books as a punishment. This is
significantly advantageous for their development since the students will be discouraged to have wrong
behavior, and at the same time gain more knowledge through the books.

All things considered, punishment is not always essential when dealing with the young's right and wrong
lessons. Schools and families need to be cautious to choose the appropriate punishments, otherwise the
children can not be fully developed.
It has been a controversial topic regarding the government’s investment in education and healthcare
and preserving the environment. I personally approve of the idea that more money should be spent on
the environment. In this essay, I will support my view with examples.

On the one hand, it is indeed true that focusing on healthcare and education has its own advantages.
Although the advances in communication technology has widely enabled people to get access to
unconventional teaching and learning methods, many still stand no chance of going to school or having
the health examined. These are usually citizens living in mountainous, underdeveloped areas where it is
difficult to build hospitals and schools. As a result, this might give birth to many social issues such as
unemployment, higher crime rates and mortality rates. By allocating more money to provide people
with equipped healthcare and education center, the government can prevent the occurrence of other
serious problems in the future.

On the other hand, there are more reasons for countries to increase their funding for protecting the
environment. The most important factor is that this can improve the living conditions of many citizens.
That is to say, a large number of people are still suffering from starvation and thirst due to extreme
drought and desertification. Each year, a considerable proportion of land becomes uninhabitable,
causing people to migrate to another region. Additionally, they are forced to travel several miles a day
for a small amount of contaminated water. Spending as much money as possible to protect the
environment may mean food and water security as well as prevented water-borne diseases. The second-
most influential cause is that preserving the environment can bring about a balance ecosystem. It has
long been recognized that humans are a part of the ecosystem, in which other creatures such as bees
and dolphins play essential roles. However, wild animals’ natural habitats are increasingly being
destroyed by human activities and many of them are being pushed to the brink of extinction.
Consequently, the planet is about to witness the next mass extinction, which can badly affect the lives of
billions of humans on earth as the ecosystem is no longer balance. In order to prevent this from
happening, the governments need to invest in more scientific schemes aiming to slower the process,
thereby preserving the diversity of wildlife on the planet.

In conclusion, it is undeniable that there are many aspects of life that need improving such as caring for
the wellbeing of citizens and saving wild animals from going extinct. From my perspective, preventing
the next mass extinction is more immediate and therefore should be given more attention.

Some people say History is one of the most important school subjects. Other people think that, in
today’s world, subjects like Science and Technology are more important than History.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

It has been a controversial topic regarding the most essential school subjects. Some argue that History is
amongst the most important, while Science and Technology are believed by others to be irreplaceable.
In this essay, I will analyze both these ideas and state my own view.

On the one hand, it is indeed true that History plays a necessary role in educating the young
generations. The first reason for my belief is that learning history promotes a sense of patriotism in
young people. That is to say, as globalization is becoming more and more widespread in today’s world,
many countries worldwide are in danger of losing their culture. By teaching young students about past
events and long-time celebrated cultural activities which distinguish their country from the others, they
will grow up with the love and pride for their native nation and therefore do their best to carry the
legacy. The second factor is that history is of great importance when it comes to social studying.
Learning about history is especially beneficial for those choosing to take courses such as anthropology in
higher education levels as it provides a more profound understanding of the society in general. As a
result, this will help the experts to identify and prevent potential social issues in the future for they have
studied many that have happened in the past. Thus, History is one of the most vital subjects in the
school syllabus.

On the other hand, Science and Technology are getting more popular and thus crucial in the modern
world. One of the contributing factors is that technology can widen one’s career path. As technology is
being increasingly applied in many different aspects of life and work, companies are requiring their
applicants to obtain certain computer certificates or have practical technological skills. Consequently,
one will stand a much better chance of getting a lucrative job in a multi-national corporation if they
know or was taught about technology. The second most influential cause is that Science is particularly
useful for students who opt for a career in the field of science, which is highly respected and considered
a driving force behind human’s development. As a matter of fact, learning about science at school not
only provides basic knowledge for young students but it also stimulates the desire to become a scientist
to contribute to the society. For example, scientists have long been searching for treatments for many
human’s illnesses and achieved great successes, thereby improving people’s health conditions and
increase their longevity. Therefore, studying subjects such as Science and Technology can be
advantageous for both individuals and the community.

To sum up, there is an ongoing argument whether History or Science and Technology should be
considered the most essential in the school curriculum. From my perspective, these subjects have their
own unique role in the education of young people and therefore should be given equal attention.

Some people say History is one of the most important school subjects. Other people think that, in
today’s world, subjects like Science and Technology are more important than History.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

The controversial dispute that concerns which subject is the most significant in the academic world
has never failed to capture the public's attention. While some people consider history to be the
subject that students need to pay the most attention to, others assert that Science and Technology is
more necessary. I strongly believe that these two courses are equally important and none should be
held in higher regard than another.
On the one hand, it is indeed true that focusing on History at school is beneficial. The most
fundamental reason is that this subject helps enhance learners' sense of gratitude. That is to say, due
to the fact that they are alway equipped with all kinds of convenience, young students these days are
likely to be ignorant and take everything around them for granted. By learning history which
highlights the deprivation and difficulty of life in the past, there is a high likelihood that students will
contemplate more about how lucky they are and thus cherish the current life they are leading. What's
more, history also plays a crucial role in the connection of generations. In other words, since history
involves the learning of wars and sacrifice of past people, acquiring knowledge in this subject would
tighten the bond between the young and their ancestors. For instance, students would be grateful
when learning that their predecessors have devoted their life for the liberty of the nation.
On the other hand, the importance of technology and science in the modern world can not be
questioned. As regards technology, it is undeniable that students with good performance in this field
would have more promising job prospects when they enter the world of work. As a matter of fact, in
such a thriving society where technology is developing at a rapid pace , more and more corporations
are adding technology qualifications to their checklist when it comes to recruiting employees. For
that reason, the IT subject is extremely vital for students to climb their career ladder. Science,
furthermore, forms the basic understanding of students about the world around them. On the grounds
that this active subject requires considerable numbers of activities, including doing research and
experiment, it forces students to explore and find more about their surroundings. In addition, because
science is indeed vital to the development of every nation in the knowledge-based society, the future
workforce needs to be well prepared with considerable knowledge in this field at school.
All things considered, history as well as technology and science are all significant for the
development of learners. Those subjects need to be equally taught so that the students will be fully
benefitted.

Government should spend money on railways rather roads.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
The dispute concerning whether government gadgets should be allocated in roads or railways has
never failed to escape the public's attention. While the importance of roads is unquestionable, from
my perspective, I assert that money needs to be spent more on rails rather than roads.
On the one hand, the need for funds on road infrastructure can not be disputed. That is to say, on the
grounds that roads are utilized by an overwhelming majority of means of transport around the world,
degraded ones can harm the wellbeing of people. A case in point is a large number of vehicle
accidents resulting from poorly-maintained roads.
On the other hand, we can not deny the benefits brought about by railways. One contributing factor is
that trains are responsible for the transportation of goods in many nations. As a matter of fact, being
able to dispatch large amounts of bulky commodities that can hardly be delivered by any other means
of transport, the use of trains is exploited by several regions worldwide, especially under and
developing countries. To exemplify, goods such as bicycles or coal are mostly transported by train in
Vietnam. What's more, trains can be an effective and environmentally friendly way for a large
number of people to commute. To be more specific, with the ability to travel at such high speed and
being operated by electricity only, trains are certain to be an optimum public transport for travellers.
Due to all aforementioned reasons, budgets ought to be spent on railways.
All things considered, although roads are of significance in people's lives, I totally agree with the
statement approving the government's funds on railways. Every nation needs to be aware of this
transportation's advantages and allocate more money in order to benefit their citizens.

Government should spend money on railways rather roads.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
It has been a controversial topic regarding national investment in two types of infrastructures namely
railways and roads. Taking into consideration the many benefits of railway networks, I approve of the
idea that more money should be allocated to railways instead of roads. In this essay, I will support my
view with examples.

On the one hand, there is one major advantage when it comes to national spending on roads. Although
a large number of roads are increasingly being built to better support the citizens’ transport needs and
the delivery of goods, many are degrading faster due to being either overloaded or extreme weather
conditions. As a matter of fact, repairing roads will mean an improved traffic condition, which reduces
the frequency of traffic congestions and accidents during rush hours in crowded areas. Consequently,
safety will be ensure for citizens as the traffic is expected to be smoother.

On the other hand, investing in railway chains can have many more potentially positive impacts on the
economy. One of the most important reasons for my belief is that this can diversify a country’s tourism.
That is to say, many nations worldwide have historical, renowned train routes that can be turned into
tourist attractions. By providing these railways with a bigger budget, more and more tourists as well as
local residents will be attracted, thereby greatly benefiting the economy. The second-most deciding
factor is that advanced railways will support the transportation of goods and materials in all parts of the
world. In spite of the fact that shipping goods by aircrafts and ships is becoming commonplace in today’s
world, railway transport is still popular due to being affordable and stable. Once renovated, it is going to
make importing and exporting different types of products significantly less of challenges. Thus, the
national economy can be greatly benefited by spending money on railways.

To sum up, it is undeniable that there is an ongoing argument over whether more investments should be
made in railway or road networks. From my perspective, there is no doubt that upgraded railways will
bring about more benefits for the economy of a country and therefore should be paid more attention by
the governments.

At the present time, the population of some countries includes a relatively large number of young
adults, compared with the number of older people.

Do the advantages of this situation outweigh the disadvantages?

The last few decades have witnessed a significant rise in the number of young people, making elders
the minority in some countries. While this trend can be disadvantageous to some extent, I hold a view
that the benefits of this development are overshadowing.
On the one hand, having too many young adults in society can be a demerit. As a matter of fact, the
dearth of seniors would mean less and less skilled employees devoting themselves to the nation's
development. As many researches have shown, elders are certain to have many occupation
experiences thanks to years working in their fields. With a surge in the number of young and
inexperienced employees, seniors' places would be taken away in many aspects. What's more, since
many young adults are rebellious and trouble-makers, this development can lead to a high rate of
criminal and other social crimes.
On the other hand, this development could be a blessing to a certain extent. That is to say, in such a
thriving society we are living in, the main workforce is required to be enthusiastic and mastering
technology. With their long-lasting stamina and thriving ability to acquire new knowledge,
youngsters are to be the most suitables candidates to aid their nation's situation. In addition, the world
will become a much better place with the appearance of the young. Being amazingly progressive and
and attentive toward alarming issues, several problems have been mitigated as a result of this
development. To exemplify, thousands of environmental organisations under the control of the young
are made annually to solve the urgent problem of pollution.
All things considered, although witnessing an overwhelming majority of young people in the society
can bring about several drawbacks, its advantages are far more outweighing and every nation should
encourage this development.

Some people believe that nowadays we have too many choices.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
With the rapid development of the society, it is believed to offer people with an overwhelming
number of choices. While people are not given enough options under certain circumstances, i still
believe the proposed convention is true to some extent. This essay will support the writer's view, as
well as giving some examples and explanations.
On the one hand, there are several cases where the options of people are strictly limited. As a matter
of fact, under the effect of heavy urbanisation, service expenses are rising rapidly around the world.
Especially in first world nations, the majority of dwellers with low or average income cannot get
access to a variety of services. A case in point is the USA. With the expensive cost of healthcare, a
myriad of Americans have to opt for poor-conditioned hospital services despite their illnesses. What's
more, people from far-flung areas might be given less choices in many aspects of life. For example,
mountainous children can hardly have many choices in terms of schools.
On the other hand, the fact that modern people are surrounded by many choices is indisputable. That
is to say, in such a consumerist society we are living in, companies worldwide are competing
intensely in order to generate profits. On the grounds that customers will purchase their products,
corporations are releasing more and more products in different appearances and usages to attract the
buyers. For instance, speaking of face masks produced by laneige the cosmetic company only, there
have been hundreds of types available in the market. Moreover, since globalisation has been adopted
widely in recent years, an overwhelming majority of choices have been offered in many fields. To
exemplify, students can choose whether to pursue education in their own country or a foreign one.
All things considered, although people's choices are restricted in some cases, they still possess a lot
of them due to all aforementioned reasons.

Nowadays many people choose to be self-employed, rather than to work for a company or
organization.
Why might this be the case?
What could be the disadvantages of being self-employed?
In recent years, a rising number of people are having preference for self-employment rather than
being employees in any corps or entrepreneurs. There are some underlying reasons behind this trend
and several problems might be exposed as a result of this option.
To begin with, amongst the contributors to one's opting for starting-up, difficulty in finding a job
appears to be significant. That is to say, in the thriving society where the labour market is more
intense than ever, job-hunting could be more of a challenge. Especially to those having no
qualifications or foreign language abilities, setting up a business is the only choice for them to make
a living. What's more, on the grounds that some employees could be dissatisfied with the current
company, self-employed might be seen as a consequence. The displeasure could be the result of low-
wage, unprofessional workplace, hateful colleagues, ect. Due to all aforementioned factors, one may
choose to be self-employed.
However, start-up can be problematic to a certain extent. As a matter of fact, having a business can
be extremely intimidating and stressful since every single work is to be done by the same person. In
contrast to an enterprise worker who only needs to major in a field, a self-employed person is
expected to handle everything from product development, content-creating tk marketing and so on. In
addition, one might risk losing all his property provided that he chooses to be self-employed. Being
inexperienced and small-scaled, self employees might be fooled and competed by other big
corporations. A case in point is the number of startups that go bankrupt every year.
All things considered, there are various reasons leading to one's preference for self-employed.
However, this option can be disadvantageous so people should be aware before making this informed
decision

Nowadays many people choose to be self-employed, rather than to work for a company or
organization.
Why might this be the case?
What could be the disadvantages of being self-employed?
It has been widely argued that being self-employed instead of working in a company is the new interest
of many working people. From my perspective, a highly competitive job market and a lack of jobs are
amongst the most important factors and this current trend has some definite downfalls. In this essay, I
will support my view with examples.

There are two major reasons for people to prefer working for themselves rather than for an
organization. The first contributing factor is that the job market in today’s world has become so selective
that it prevents many from finding a job. Multinational companies and corporations are increasingly
requiring their applicants to have practical work experience as well as obtain international certificates.
These are usually difficult to achieve and can take many years of training courses. As a result, workers
who have a humble beginning are not likely to have a decent job. The second cause for this could be
that a job scarcity is more and more common these days. For instance, as industrialization and
commercialization are developing at a high speed, more robots and machines are in used for the
manufacturing processes need to be completed faster and more precisely. Therefore, there is going to
be significantly less demand for human workforce in factories and industrial farms, causing people to
switch to being self-employed. Admittedly, this new phenomenon also has some inevitable downsides.

One of the most noticeable disadvantages is that citizens’ living standard might experience a decline.
That is to say, as more people are having online jobs or running their own small-scale enterprises, they
will find it rather difficult to make a living because they cannot effectively compete with large companies
in terms of budgets, investments and customers. Consequently, many people may not be able to
provide their family and themselves with an appropriate life. Another negative impact of this is that
companies might risk losing a large number of employees. For example, although the industrial process
is constantly applying machines workforce, many other stages can only be done by humans. However,
there will be less human resource available as people are starting to manage their own businesses. Thus,
a new trend in working preferences may badly affect the people and companies.

To sum up, it is undeniable that self-employment is becoming of greater importance for many people
nowadays. In my opinion, there are two main culprits for this to be the case and some of its serious
effects can be justified. I firmly believe that certain aspects should be examined before deciding whether
to start a business or work for an organization.

Many museums charge for admission while others are free.

Do you think the advantages of charging people for admission to museums outweigh the
disadvantages?

Issue concerning whether museums should be free of charge or not has never failed to capture the
public's attention. Personally, I put forward a view that although charging museum visitors might
have several drawbacks, the benefits it brings about are far more overshadowing.
On the one hand, asking for an entrance fee may negatively impact the public. As a matter of fact, in
the thriving society where technology is so advanced, people are gradually losing their interest in
history and art. The admission fee, accidentally, might speed up the process since humans are
frequently demotivated by expenses. This might in turn result in a dearth of national history
knowledge, as well as other information about common arts. In addition, the act of charging may
prevent the less wealthy from visiting the museums, thus affecting their mental life. A case in point is
a man in America who can not afford the price to see the art museums much as his love for art.
On the other hand, the advantages resulting from charging is unquestionable. Firstly, museums can
probably operate better with the budget obtained from the admission fees. That is to say, the money
could be utilized for staff's monthly salaries, maintenance expenses and objects purchases. Provided
audiences do not pay for visiting, there is a high likelihood that museums will risk bankruptcy due to
losses. What's more, visitors charging might also benefit the local artists. On the grounds that
museums possess sufficient sources of income from visitors' payment, they would expand the
collection by purchasing more artworks from artists in the area. To exemplify, more Vietnamese
artists have been able to sell their pieces of art to the museums since those institutions started to
charge the visitors.
All things considered, despite having several disadvantages, the positive impacts of museums fees
are overweighting and it need to be applied for the sake of both museums and people creating arts.

The diagrams below show the life cycle of a species of large fish called the salmon.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons
where relevant.
The flow charts given illustrate precisely the developing process of salmon species. Overall, the baby
salmon have to go through 3 main stages until fully grown, with striking differences in terms of size
between each stage.
The cycle initially begins with 'fry' (only 3 to 8 cm in size) living in the lower river. It is significant
to notice the water flow is particularly fast in their habitat and it takes approximately 4 years for the
baby fish to move to the second step - smolt. At this stage, salmon is 12-15 cm and the habitat is
altered to open sea. Once having spent merely 5 years in the new area, smolt grow fully and
transform into adult salmon, with the size nearly 5 fold its previous step, making the stage the fastest
flourish of salmon. The final step is for adult salmon to slowly swim to the upper river for
reproduction. In roughly 5 to 6 months, salmon lay eggs in reads with stones setting aside. As soon as
the cycle is completed, it repeats itself all over again.