社会类

1. It is important for all towns and cities to have large public outdoor places
like squares and parks. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Cities are comprised of more than just buildings and people. The most
liveable cities and some of the world’s most famous cities are as known for
their open space. Some people point out that public outdoor places in urban
development provide many advantages, however, some critics argue the
establishment of squares and parks brings about negative environmental
impacts. After serious consideration, I approve that such a practice is
conductive to citizens as well as their environment.

Good public landscape offers obvious benefits to the local residents’

physical and mental health since it is often appreciated for the recreational
opportunities it offers. For example, public parks and square plazas could
encourage people to walk more, to play sport, or simply to enjoy a green and
natural environment. In other words, open spaces are a powerful weapon in
the fight against people’s sedentary lifestyle, obesity and ill-health. Time
spent in an urban open space for recreation offers a reprieve from the urban
environment. In addition, a high-quality public environment can have
significant impact on the economic life of urban centers. As towns
increasingly compete with one another to attract investment, the presence of
good parks, squares, gardens and other public spaces becomes a vital
business and marketing tool. Companies and enterprises are willing to invest
in locations that offer well-designed, well-managed public places. Last but
not the least, public parks play a vital role in keeping the air and water clean,
contracting the damaging effects of pollution, and mitigating climate
changes.

However, some argue that with this broad range of recreational sites comes
an equally broad range of environmental issues. Just as in any other land
uses, the way parks are managed can have detrimental environmental
impacts, from pesticide runoff, siltation from overused hiking and logging
trails, and destruction of habitat. Moreover, residential areas in some big
cities are already too crowded to be scaled down. Developing public spaces
by sacrificing living areas could affect residents’ living quality and
happiness to some extent.

In conclusion, although there are opponents against public spaces

development, it is undeniable that public open spaces improve individuals’
physical and psychological health, strengthen communities, and make cities
and neighborhoods more attractive places to live and work.
2. The major cities in the world are growing fast and many problems occur.
What are the problems that young people live in cities are faced with? What
solutions do you suggest?
Now that people are well into the new Millennium, society has begun to
recognize serious concerns with issues that young people have to deal with
today. Some issues have always been there but are now coming to the eyes
of the public to find solutions. Other issues are new trends as society begins
to adapt to a faster pace of life.

As major cities develop quickly, several related obstacles that young urban
citizens might encounter can be anticipated. First of all, one of the problems
that young people in the urban city has to face is unemployment. As more
and more people want to seek jobs in these extremely competitive cities, the
demand for employment cannot meet its supply. In other words, there are
more people competing for a single job, which makes job searching
frustrating. As a result, a lot of young people might stay unemployed for a
long period of time, which in turn leads to a dramatic decrease in the
standard of living and creates a lot of bad consequences in terms of
economic and social sides, including robbing, drug addiction, and so on.
Secondly, high cost of transport and living in big cities constrains both
young people’s ability to search for jobs as well as their ability to stay in
employment. In many metropolis, like New York, it can cost an arm and a
leg for a small apartment. Therefore, young people are forced to live at
locations that are far away from where they work and commute to workplace
every day. However, they must allocate a portion of these saved rental costs
to transportation, which is usually not cheap.

To overcome all above-mentioned problems, young people themselves,

employers and governments need to make efforts. Firstly, entrepreneurship
as a viable a solution to youth unemployment. With the right structure and
facilitated administrative processes, young people could create enterprises as
means to find and create new jobs. Secondly, it is important to make sure
that employers are engaged with young people and school, so there is more
familiarity with the world of work throughout the education system. This
can include work experience, career advice, mentoring and community
youth initiatives supported by business. Governments should be the third
solution. It is highly advisable that governments take measures to limit the
number of people migrating into big cities and create more job opportunities
in smaller cities. Moreover, more funds should be allocated to the
establishment of public transportation to alleviate the overall traffic problem.

To sum up, youth unemployment and high cost of living and transportation
in big cities are lingering issues. To solve these problems, governments and
employers should work together to make cities better and offer more benefits
for youth.
3. In many countries today, both men and women need to work full time.
Therefore, some people think men and women should share household tasks
equally (e.g. cleaning and looking after children). To what extent do you
agree or disagree?

Just like work and pay, when it comes to housework, the gender gap still
exists. Even though women’s roles in everyday society have drastically
changed, they are still responsible for the majority of household tasks. Some
people point out that men should assist their partners around the house and
devote equal time to household chores. I partially agree with this opinion
because how to divide up housework depends on a number of factors.

It is frustrating for couples to expect to split housework equally because

fifty-fifty splits often results in constant renegotiation and endless bickering.
Instead, specialization should be the standard to split housework.
Specialization helps to optimize family efficiency by focusing on who can
do better relative to his/her partner. For example, men typically are better at
fixing furniture, while women are more efficient in cleaning. If they both
execute the tasks that they are better at, they can avoid negotiating and frees
up hours. In addition, the income factor indeed affects which of the two
partners is picked for chores. The one in a marriage relationship who earns
more is likely to work more hours and has more outside demand on their
time. Therefore, the high-earning party are expected to do fewer chores and
fewer childcare tasks than the low-earning one.

However, some people argue that fairness is key in terms of dividing

household tasks. Firstly, the role of women has been changing. Women’s
educational levels are now at least as good as those of men and women’s
earnings have been gradually approaching those of men, therefore,
household chores should be shared equally between couples. Secondly,
scenarios in which housework is shared more or less equally between
members of a couple are conductive to their relationship. Couples could gain
greater efficiency by sharing household activities, which allows them to
spare more time for other pursuits, such as working and leisure.

In conclusion, household tasks could be tedious and time demanding and

endless housework can feel more grueling than a job outside the home,
especially when it also involves taking care of kids. However, marriage or
any other human relationships is not a business transaction, rather it’s an
emotional relationship. When taking the emotional factor into account,
couples would not stress equality or fairness in dividing housework.
4. Employers should give its stuff at least four weeks of holidays a year to
make employees to do better in their jobs. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
Employers are obliged to ensure that employees have certain amount of
working days' leave in connection with holidays each year. Yet, the lengths
of annual holidays differs in different companies. Some people suggest that
employees should be given at least four weeks of holidays per year. In my
opinion, this practice is a win-win solution to both employers and
employees.

It is beneficial both for companies and staff if a four-week holiday

entitlement is guaranteed. Firstly, giving workers the benefit of paid holidays
off can increase employee happiness and morale, which has the ultimate
effect of improving employee retention. Workers value paid holidays, so if
they are satisfied with the length of holidays, they are less likely to quit.
Secondly, overall productivity tends to increase as a consequence of giving
employees paid holiday leave. Being able to take time off allows employees
to go travelling, take care of personal issues, or simply enjoy the leisure time
at home with their family members. The result is returning to work with
brains and bodies functioning better and having fewer distraction while at
work, which results in increased productivity.

From the perspective of companies, some argue that providing long paid
leave is a costly options for businesses and could have negative impact on
business operation. For example, when an employee is not in the office for a
month, the tasks that he/she is responsible for might be delayed, or the
company needs to pay someone else to take over the corresponding
responsibilities. However, holiday break could be pre-planned and pre-
booked and companies could also establish a process for handing over
ongoing work when an employee is scheduled to go on holiday. Therefore,
the overall advantages of offering employees a four-week time off outweigh
the disadvantages.

To summarize, I think the idea of four-week holiday is well fitted with the
modern lifestyle. I therefore remain to be convinced that this holiday policy
will actually work in practice because this is something that both employees
and employers really want.
5. Older people who need employment have to compete with younger
people. What problem does this cause and what are the resolutions?
The modern society has become a front line in a generational battle for jobs,
as older workers increasingly compete against applicants in their 20s for
positions at labor markets. This kind of competition leads to numerous
problems and various measures should be taken to improve this situation.

One of the most common problems raised is that many mature employees,
age 50 or older, approach the job search with a defeated attitude and a
bundle of resentment because of the potential for age discrimination. As a
result, many older workers fear being pushed aside and out of their jobs by
younger, more dynamic employees. In addition, searching for summer
employment can be enough of a challenge for teens, as fierce competition
from older, more experienced workers makes the job search frustrating. For
example, holiday retail jobs that used to go to high school kids are being
snapped up by job-seeker in their 40s and 50s. Young people with master’s
degrees who get a job of selling gifts count themselves lucky to be
employed. Last but not the least, communication is one of the biggest
problems in an intergenerational workplace. Older people have a longer
attention span and are often more patient, which strikes younger workers as
being slow. Moreover, younger people speak differently and use slang,
which will likely be overhead by an older worker as an insult.

In order to handle the above mentioned problems, a variety of actions need

to be taken immediately. Firstly, the introduction or reinforcement of
policies supporting diversity in the workplace is a significant step to support
older worker participation. Secondly, it is important for job seekers, both the
old and the young, and interviewers, to remember age is just a number and
to resist the urge to classify people based on stereotypes. Both workers and
employers must look beyond age and realize that competence and ability no
longer correlated to how old a person is or how many years of experience a
person has. Further, if job seekers feels being undermined or ignored
because of age, they should talk directly to the human resource staff or
employment services who are often on the front line of helping these
workers. In terms of the communication problem in multigenerational
workplace, the solution must focus on compromise. They could speak their
own language but they must accept and try to understand that of others.
In conclusion, in order to successfully combat ageism and intergenerational
tension, generations need to start to see one another as assets and allies.
Only in this way can we create an inclusive and well-organized workplace.
6. Some people believe that the best way to build a happier society is to
ensure that there are only small differences between the richest and the
poorest members. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Happiness is a complicated concept and, throughout time, many have tried
to explain its correlation with economic indicators. Some people consider
income inequality as an important predictor of happiness. However, I would
like to argue that the gap between the rich and the poor is not a fundamental
component of well-being.

Admittedly, the material conditions of life indeed increase along with

smaller gaps between the rich and the poor. Also, people will have less sense
of deprivation and more sense of equality when relative income differences
are small. In countries with ever widening income inequalities, class
conflicts and tensions between the rich and the poor are increasing. For
example, in some Asian cultures, most of the richest members do not talk to
those who lives in slum shelters since they think that interacting with the
poor will lower their social status. However, more and more studies show
that income inequality does not necessarily increase the overall happiness,
especially in rich nations and normal times. In wealthier, more developed
nations, people’s needs get more sophisticated and rely on things than can’t
be attained with money alone. The indicators for their happiness can include
a healthy relationship, entertainment options, and nice weather. Therefore,
merely shrinking the income gap cannot build a happier society.

In fact, many other practical steps can be taken to create a happier society.
Firstly, people can take actions in their everyday lives that not only help
boost their own happiness but contribute to building better, more positive
environments in their families, relationships and communities. These include
simple things like finding things to be grateful for each day, trying out
something new or different, and looking for the good in others. Secondly,
governments should ensure a stable economy for their citizens since a
healthy economy is the foundation of happiness and well-being. Lastly, there
are a lot of practical ways in which organizations and businesses can create
happier workplaces. These include measuring staff well-being, improving
work-life balance and using enhance approaches to recruitment, training and
people management.

In conclusion, in order to build a society with the greatest possible human

happiness and wellbeing, reducing income inequality alone is not the best
solution, rather, governments, businesses and individuals should take
effective actions collectively and immediately.