1.

Tourism is an important component of a country’s economy, but how is it distributed around the world, and what
correlation is there between a country’s wealth and its tourism sector? There is certainly a connection between
these two, as shown in the graph, with the most surprising results being in Eastern Europe, which has its reasons.

Firstly, the Western countries dominate this sector, with North America having been only being in lead for 15 years
in a row. Although it has been steadily growing in the last decades, it is obvious that the tourism sector has slowly
entered a regression phase. This might be the result of other countries climbing the leader board to the top or
problems in American society related to its stability in its political and economical factors.

Secondly, a surprising part of the world that has improved in this sector tremendously in the past years in Central
and Eastern Europe. This part of Europe escaped communism in the late 1980s, which led lead to European
integration across both East and West parts of the continent, with Eastern European countries increasing their
wealth in a fast manner. The graph shows that between 1990 and 2005, this part of Europe tripled its tourism sector.

Lastly, a part of the world worth mentioning is South-East Asia. This part of the world has also seen many
developments but not constantly, nor everywhere. Countries like Singapore and Indonesia, for example, have
developed immensely recently, which has led to more tourism, but other countries like Vietnam and Laos have not
changed much, making which made the change in most of the region negligible. Although it is a small improvement,
this region has doubled its small tourism sector, from 9 million visitors to around 20 million yearly.

In the end, the tourist sector has grown in all parts of the world, with North America in the lead 15 years in a row,
the main reason for this growth being economic improvements and better living standards.
2.

Modern day society is all based on money, but should it be this way? And if not, is choosing a job that gives more
enjoyment a better option? In my opinion, the second option is more important because, not only does it covers the
financial side in on the long run more efficiently due to because of your enhanced performance at a job you like, but
also it allows you to be happier and mentally healthier. However, it is not guaranteed that the job you fancy will pay
off in the end, leading to failure.

Firstly, an important factor to take into consideration is your life goals. Many people who that choose money over
genuine happiness result in an existential crisis. This is also the case with people who that follow certain professions
because their parents demanded it, in order to achieve financial success. Still, it is not healthy in the long run,
leading to depression and other mental problems, knowing that you wasted a substantial amount of your life doing
something which you detest.

Secondly, you might be more successful choosing a job you like because it gives you, as an individual, more
motivation to pursue a career in that area. This leads to a better performance in your domain, resulting in
promotions which make the job more beneficial in the financial area compared to the one you disfavour.

On the other hand, choosing a job you like over a job that pays more is a risk that comes with consequences. If you
don’t perform well enough in order to get a raise or promotion, you might undermine the financial side. This might
lead to conflicts among your family in the short term, which might affect your overall mental stability and the well-
being of the family.

In the end, a job you fancy is a better option than one that pays more, however, there are risks to take into
consideration so, to make a choice between the two, a lot of thinking is needed.

Sample writing