Statement – Agree/Disagree

One-sided essay

Two-sided essay

Some people claim that public museums and art galleries will be no longer necessary
(disagree) because people can see historical objects and works of art by using a computer
(disagree). To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Introduction: one-sided essay (disagree)

- General statement:
- Thesis statement: In my opinion, public museums and art galleries always play an
essential role in the development of either intellectual or cultural aspects in the society.

Body 1: the importance of such historical as well as tourist destinations (museums +

galleries)

Body 2: drawbacks of seeing historical objects by using a computer.

Some people claim that public museums and art galleries will be no longer necessary
(disagree) because people can see historical objects and works of art by using a computer
(agree). To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Introduction: two-sided essay

Thesis: Although people today are more likely to make some research about historical
relics via their PDA like a computer instead of paying a visit to museums or art galleries, I
strongly assume that such historical and tourist places still play an essential role in the
development of either intellectual or cultural aspects in the society.

Body 1: benefits of using a computer

Body 2: the importance of such historical as well as tourist destinations (museums +

galleries)

Some people think the money spent on developing technology for space exploration is not
justified. However, there are more beneficial ways to spend this money. To what extent do
you agree or disagree?

Statement – two-sided essay

 - Money spent on developing technology for space exploration is not justified.
(disagree = space exploration: essential)
- There are more beneficial ways to spend this money. (agree)

Body 1: The importance of space exploration

Body 2: The importance of other life aspects (education/healthcare)

With the current pace of technological progress, space exploration has been gaining more and
more traction in many countries. However, some people view this development only
as money squandering. From my standpoint, while space exploration plays a certain part in
humankind’s development, it should not take precedence over other domains that are
more integral to our daily life.

On the one hand, investments in space exploration can be justified because it holds the ultimate
key to the human race’s long-term existence. This problem arises from the fact that the Earth’s
living conditions have constantly been under acute threats from the ever-increasing global
population and the non-stop tempo of socio-economic growth. Consequently, the Earth’s
natural conditions will be too harsh for human life, which necessitates the need to seek for
other planets to live in. However, terraforming a planet requires tremendous research,
experimenting and prior infrastructure construction to lay the groundwork for life on a new
planet. Therefore, spending money in space exploration early will equip humankind with
sufficient preparation in terms of both knowledge and willpower for living on a different
planet.

On the other hand, I still contend that there are other more urgent fields that require huge
financial support. While space exploration is more about the long-term value, current alarming
issues right now such as education, epidemics or climate change should also
receive meticulous attention so that human life can sustain long enough until a suitable
planet is successfully detected. To be more specific, governments should allocate subsidies to
education in order to build up high-quality human resources for sustainable future
development, even for the sphere of space exploration. Another field in need of financial
resources is healthcare as the recent COVID-19 epidemic has corroborated public
healthcare as a matter of survival for the long-run economic progression.

In conclusion, my stance is that although expenditures on space exploration are still for a good
cause, the priority should be current problems facing humankind on the Earth namely education
and healthcare. Therefore, the government needs to be in concert with the citizens to achieve
the optimal money distribution between space exploration and other urgent sectors.

Convenience foods will become increasingly prevalent and eventually replace traditional
foods and traditional methods of food preparation. To what extent do you agree or
disagree with this opinion?
TWO-SIDED essay

It is true that types of convenience food are likely to widely gain their popularity and ultimately
could substitute kinds of conventional food and traditional methods of cooking as well. In my
opinion, although packed food goes along way, traditional food is of paramount importance in
daily life.

Due to the advancement in science and technology, convenience foods have become increasingly
popular with consumers and pose a threat to the availability of traditional cuisine and methods of
cooking in the near future. In my opinion, though the popularity of such convenient and instant
foods will rise substantially, traditional food is always conserved and irreplaceable in people’s
diets.

Body 1: convenience food = time/effort saving + satisfy with youngsters’ taste.

Body 2: the importance of traditional food in people’ life = healthier + cultural identity.

ONE-SIDED essay

Recent years have witnessed a dramatic change in the type of food people consume. Nowadays,
convenience foods or most commonly-known as processed foods form a major part of most
people’s diets, especially in developed countries. Considering the strong influence of this trend
on global food habits, I personally claim that the popularity of such instant foods will rise
substantially and traditional foods will gradually disappear in the foreseeable future.
There are two main reasons why processed foods are likely to become more popular in the
coming years. Firstly, the decline in family size and the increase in single-adult households have
rendered cooking unnecessary. In the past, people lived in large families where one person
looked after time-consuming domestic tasks such growing and preparing food. Definitely, this
way of living was more economical in those times. But, in today’s fast-paced world, where
nuclear and single parent families have become the norm, preparing food daily is often seen as a
useless and boring activity.
Moreover, the number of full-time working mothers is increasing day by day. Maintaining a fine
balance between personal and work life has become a demanding/herculean task for many
females. Most of them, therefore, prefer to use the fastest means of satisfying their children’s
hunger. Since convenience foods take less time to prepare, they generally turn out to be the
easiest option. Undoubtedly, this trend is a serious threat to the existence of traditional foods as
our young children are highly likely to imitate what they consume every day.
To sum up, I strongly believe that there is a close relation between our way of living and food
habits. In this modern world, people are choosing ready to eat foods over conventional foods for
two main reasons mentioned above. If this trend continues, I have no doubt that traditional food
will become a thing of the past.
Hall residence / student accommodation building / dormitory in the campus

It is presumed that undergraduates had better reside in schools, rather than living at home with
their parents. In my opinion, settling in schools is the most optimal way for college students.
There exists a contentious topic that whether students should start an independent life in a
dormitory of a college or live at home. From my point of view, staying in a dormitory on campus
plays a more crucial role in a student's life.

One-sided essay = agree

Benefit 1: convenient in moving

Benefit 2: have a sense of independence/self-discipline/self-reliance

It is better for college students to live in schools than live at home with their parents.
Do you agree or disagree?

Accommodation is one of the important aspects to which a student often pays close
attention when pursuing tertiary education. It is commonly-believed that residing in the
student hall residence is superior to staying at home with parents; and in my opinion, this
choice is completely justified and will be illuminated with a number of reasons in the
following paragraphs.

Residing in the student hall residence is superior to staying at home with parents. I totally
agree with the idea for a number of reasons illuminated in the following paragraphs.

Firstly, students who are about to attend higher education might find living in dormitories highly
convenient. No doubt it would take these individuals less time to commute on a daily basis as
their rooms are in close proximity to the class. By contrast, students whose houses are far from
schools are highly likely to spend much time travelling back and forth, not to mention frequent
traffic jams that could prevent them from going to school punctually.
The second benefit that staying on-campus offers students is the opportunity to become
independent. It is true that those who live far away from their parents have to face a great
number of problems on their own, ranging from managing personal budgets, finding suitable
part-time jobs to eating properly and taking care of their health. This would help them to develop
a strong sense of self-reliance, which plays an important role in their lives in the future. On the
other hand, if students live at home, they tend to rely on parental support and some could become
over-reliant.
Finally, the exposure to people from all walks of life is highly beneficial. When staying in the
school’s hall of residence, students are usually surrounded by peers of different races, religions
and so on. This forces them to learn about cultural or religious differences, a unique experience
that cannot be duplicated if they choose to live off campus.

In conclusion, it seems to me that living on campus is the better option for students for the
above-mentioned reasons.

Many schools demand that the students should wear uniform. Some people think that such
a practice undermines student’s personality and individuality. What do you think?

Statement: Such a practice undermines student’s personality and individuality.

One-sided essay – disagree

Body 1: wearing uniform does not affect student’s personality and individuality

Body 2: the importance of school uniform

Most schools in Vietnam make uniforms compulsory, which are seen as a symbol of the schools.
However, some people claim that students might be in danger of losing their individuality as well
as personality by wearing uniforms. In my opinion, this view is not justified and I would explore
my reasons of this and state some benefits of uniform in the society.

To begin with, the reason is that the kind of clothes we wear is only a slight indication of our
personality, which is largely revealed by the way we speak and behave. Specifically, our
character is not likely to be affected by what we wear; also, uniform is only a part of our external
appearance. For example, we certainly have quite different experience with similarly uniformed
students: one rude, the other courteous. No matter what we wear, we will remain different from
each other because each of us is unique.

Additionally, wearing uniform in schools benefits to both these education institutions and
students that’s why they necessitate their students to wear uniforms when going to school. These
institutions, certainly, believe that by wearing school uniforms, their students will learn about
discipline, and how to wear proper and formal clothing. If they allow the students to wear free
clothes, there might be a risk that students would wear inappropriate clothing during school
hours. Moreover, one of remarkable advantages of this rule is that with the existence of school
uniforms, there is no longer the case of differentiating the economic class of students. Although
some students might come from a wealthy family, they must wear the same quality piece of
clothing as the other students who come from various backgrounds in the society.
In conclusion, I strongly assure that students’ personality and individuality would not be affected
by wearing their school uniform. Needless to say, uniform acts as an equalizer, contributing to
the equality among students.

Big salary is much more important than job satisfaction. Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree:

1. Salary = satisfaction (two-sided essay) - Are equally important to a worker

Body 1: the importance of salary

Body 2: the importance of satisfaction

2. Satisfaction more (one-sided essay)

It is often argued that it is more advantageous to choose a job with high wage, even if it doesn't
appeal to us at all. In my opinion, this statement is completely not justified as job satisfaction is
much more important than salary.

First of all, I believe that job satisfaction gives people a sense of fulfillment that no money can
guarantee. Even if someone is earning a high salary, but feels tensed and compromises with his
conscience, this person won’t enjoy his life. While pursuing one’s interests will always bring
pleasure and feeling of satisfaction. For example, a lot of famous researchers made their career
choices not because of appealing wages, but because they were passionate about science. That’s
why it’s more important to choose the kind of work that makes us happy than to look only at a
high salary.

Secondly, doing what we like keeps us motivated and therefore leads to a career growth. In other
words, there is a strong relation between job satisfaction and productivity. People who love their
jobs can easily excel in their fields of work and achieve better results than those, who put salary
on the first place. For instance, Henry Miller decided to leave his everyday job despite a good
wage and ventured to become a writer. And after enduring years of ups and downs he became
one of the most famous and well-paid authors of the twentieth century. Thus, advantages of jobs
that keep us satisfied outweigh the drawback of a low salary in a long-term perspective.

To conclude, I strongly believe that job satisfaction is more beneficial than high salary because it
makes people happy and motivated.

The government's investment in arts, music and theatre is a waste of money. Governments
should invest these funds in public services instead. To what extent do you agree with this
statement?

Statement:
 - The government's investment in arts, music and theatre is a waste of money
(disagree)

- Governments should invest these funds in public services instead (agree)

Two-sided essay

Body 1: the importance of arts, music and theatre

Body 2: the important of public services

It is often argued that the government should finance public services instead of spending its
budget on arts, music and theatre. Although I personally assume that government’s investments
in public services play a very important role, I think that proper funding of arts sector is also
crucial for the society.

On the one hand, the government should definitely allocate a large part of its budget on public
services. This economic sector determines the overall quality of life, ensuring that some basic
services, like schools, hospitals and roads, are available to all citizens regardless of their income
or social status. Public services satisfy the primary needs of the society and thus need a proper
funding, while artists and musicians are not curing diseases or building houses, so their role is
secondary. For example, any country can live without music concerts, but absence of medicine
will create significant problems. That’s why the government should adequately finance public
services in the first place.

On the other hand, arts, music and theatre are not a waste of money, since they are an integral
part of the society’s cultural and intellectual development and amusement. It is obvious that a
piece of music can exhort myriads of people to reconsider their attitude towards some situations.
This way, art serves as a major source of nation’s personal and intellectual development.
Moreover, visiting museums, watching movies and listening to music are common ways of
relaxation and entertainment. Thus, art sector is also important for the society and should not be
neglected.

To conclude, though I agree that the government should allocate a large part of its budget on
such urgent needs of the society like public services, I think that arts, music and theatre should
also be financed since they play an important role in people’s development and entertainment.

Some people say that feeling of competition should be encouraged in children while others
say they should be taught to become cooperative. What is your opinion?
Children are the tender buds of the society and they are required to be taught true values of life.
Therefore, some people tend to believe that feeling of competition should be infused in them
while others believe that the possession of cooperative values are required for them. I will
discuss the merits and demerits of both aspects before reaching to any opinion.

To begin with, there are many reasons why children should be having the value of
competition. Firstly, competition motivates youngsters to accelerate their efforts to attain higher
level in education and in other activities. They start doing work hard to compete with others and
understand the value of hard work. This dedication and hard work help them to stand first
everywhere. Secondly, the competition value inculcates self-confidence and self-independence in
children. When they participate in activities and compete others, they are more likely to have
feeling of self-achievement and fulfillment. They feel themselves worthy that provide them
balanced and peaceful mind. They tend to become self-reliant and that result in best decision
talking ability in them.

On the other hand, it is needless to say that how important is it to inculcate the value of
cooperation. This is the ideal way that a child can learn teamwork, team spirit, co-existence,
tolerance and patience. It becomes quite evident that the well-known icons of the society are only
those who had a helping and sacrificing attitude; a self-centered human being cannot earn fame
in society. Secondly, incessant preaching for competition may results in rivalry feeling for peer
group and others. These rivalry feelings take no time in turning into jealous and personal
grudges. A heart full of jealous can never be successful in life.

To conclude, after gauging both, competitive and cooperative values, I feel that both values have
their own importance. Thus, a child should be brought up by imparting both equally.

We cannot help everyone in the world that needs help, so we should only be concerned with
our own communities and countries. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this
statement?

Statement: We cannot help everyone in the world that needs help, so we should only be
concerned with our own communities and countries

One-sided essay – disagree

Some people believe that we should not help people in other countries as long as there are
problems in our own society. In my opinion, we should try to help as many people as possible.

On the one hand, I accept that it is important to help our neighbors and fellow citizens. In most
communities there are a lot of people who are impoverished or disadvantaged in some ways. It is
possible to find homeless people, for example, in even the wealthiest of cities, and for those who
are concerned about this problem, there are usually opportunities to volunteer time or give
money to support these people. In Vietnam, people can help in a variety of ways, from donating
clothing to serving free food in local pagodas. As the problems are on our doorstep, and there are
obvious ways to help, I can understand why some people feel that we should prioritize local
charity.

At the same time, I believe that we have an obligation to help those who live beyond our national
borders. In some countries the problems that people face are much more serious than those in our
own communities, and it is often even easier to help. For example, when children are dying from
curable diseases in African countries, governments and individuals in richer countries can save
lives simply by paying for vaccines that already exist. A small donation to an international
charity might have a much greater impact than helping in our local area.
In conclusion, it is true that we cannot help everyone, but in my opinion national boundaries
should not stop us from helping those who are in need.

Some people think spoken communication is more powerful than written communication.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Disagree – two-sided essay

Spoken = written

Body 1: spoken

Body 2: written

Some people are of the opinion that spoken communication may have an edge over its written
counterpart. From my perspective, this view is not completely true as both spoken and written
forms are important in equal measure.
Spoken language, on the one hand, facilitates our daily communication. Virtually all social
activities that human beings engage in such as making purchases, exchanging information or
chatting with friends entail people uttering words to one another, and it is not
an overstatement to say lack of oral communication may render us unable to carry out any
essential tasks in life. Additionally, when combined with body language, facial expressions, and
eye contact, oral communication exhibits strong emotional messages. Whilst political figures
make persuasive, well-articulated speeches as an effective tool of persuasion and manipulation,
women make full use of their sweet, melodious voices to talk their beloved ones into buying
things they want to.
Written language, on the other hand, appears to be relegated and ignored. This is unfortunate
because written communication has advantages that would make it a superior choice in some
situations over oral communication. From a legal perspective, written language, in the form of
legal documents, is instrumental in safeguarding the rights of the people. Most contracts are
carefully drawn up in written forms and require signatures, and therefore they are solid and hard
to be breached. In contrast, so-called ‘agreements’ or ‘promises’ in oral forms, in most cases,
are invalid. Moreover, written language is a very efficient representation of complex notions,
emotional expressions, and philosophies. Great minds store their ideas in books and novels, and
those books have been instrumental in spreading their ideas to a much wider range of audiences.
We can see written language as a way of indirectly conversing with not only one, but hundreds,
thousands, or even millions of people.
In conclusion, my firm conviction is that both spoken and written communication are equally
important in our society. Whereas spoken language enables us to do everyday tasks and
effectively show our emotions, written language plays a pivotal role in legal matters and allows
for great ideas to be spread to a lot of people.
Some people believe that reading stories from a book is better than watching TV or playing
computer games for children. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
One-sided essay = agree
Body 1: books better than TV
Body 2: books better than playing games
Reading story books has recently been claimed to be more beneficial for children than watching
television or playing e-games on the computer. For kids who are book addicts, this is
absolutely true since nothing can be compared with enjoying a story.
First off, TV watching is inferior to story book reading. The former is associated with the habit
of 'watching' rather than 'reading' whereas the latter is the opposite. Some might say that the two
are very similar since anyone involved needs to use their eyes. Reasonable as it is, those who
believe so do not really take into consideration the point that readers can stop at a page and
contemplate about it for as long as possible, especially when it comes to hard-to-understand
stories, such as mystery books.
Second of all, reading story books is also superior to playing computer games. Admittedly, being
engaged in game playing on the computer is undeniably great fun as a wonderful stress
reliever, but games are games only. However, story book reading is associated with a multitude
of educational benefits, one of which is the cultivation of emotions. In this current world, fewer
and fewer people have any interest in enjoying a short story or a novel, so they need to be
immersed in this environment at an early age. The earlier the better. If children laugh or cry
with characters in a story, they will gradually develop feelings of loving other human beings in
real life.
In conclusion, my perspective concerning the great joy gained from reading story books has been
clarified. This actually might not be highly appreciated by children with other interests. In this
technological world, it is not surprising that the majority of kids prefer to be engaged elsewhere,
each to his own.

Environmental protection should be the responsibility of politicians, not individuals as

individuals can do too little. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Two-sided

Environmental protection should be the responsibility of politicians (agree)

Not individuals as individuals can do too little (disagree)

Body 1: the governmental responsibility

Body 2: the individual responsibility

Some people think that politicians should be responsible for protecting the environment as there
is nothing much that each individual can do about this problem. In my opinion, the
responsibility to protect the environment should not fall upon politicians alone
because ordinary citizens can make a significant contribution.

Firstly, politicians can urge the government to impose new laws against actions that damage
the environment. For instance, one of the major factors leading to environmental pollution
is the overuse of plastic products, like bottles and bags, and this can be stopped if the
government issues an official ban on all companies from using plastic packaging. In addition, the
rate of deforestation can also be reduced if high-ranking bureaucrats agree to impose strict
punishments, such as long-term imprisonment and heavy fines, on those who cut down trees
illegally. However, besides introducing and enforcing new laws and regulations, I doubt that
there is any further action that politicians can take to protect the environment.

On the other hand, I believe that ordinary people, through small, everyday actions, can also
greatly contribute to protecting the environment. First, citizens in many countries, like the
Netherlands, have now shifted towards using bicycles and subway trains for their daily travel
instead of cars, which has so far helped reduce a tremendous amount of CO2 released into the
air, and improved air quality. Second, the problem of polluted oceans has also been tackled in
many places thanks to groups of young people who voluntarily spend their time cleaning up
beaches, or even diving into water to pick up trash.

In conclusion, I hold the view that politicians alone cannot deal with all environmental problems,
and therefore individuals should also make a contribution to protecting our environment.

The use of mobile phones should be banned in public places like libraries and shops. To
what extent do you agree or disagree?
Disagree – should not be banned – restricted usage
Telecommunication technology has played a vital role in information sharing and bringing
people closer. Its usage has become a basic necessity of life and one cannot image to live without
mobile phones. Prohibition of cell phones in public places is laudable; however, I strongly
believe that their usage should be allowed in public places but with some restrictions.

On the one hand, using mobile phones in public places can distract other people and divert their
attentions. For instance in libraries, people getting immersed in reading materials can be easily
distracted through ringtones of incoming calls or people talking over the phone loudly. Mobile
phone usage in public places like hospitals can easily interfere with the medical equipment which
can be harmful to the patient. Additionally, its usage in some other public places like: theaters,
cinema rooms or pagodas can result in discomfort for others and spoil their entertainment or
offerings.
On the other hand, restricting usage of mobile phones in public places is sometimes unreasonable
as it certainly keeps people away to stay in touch with their loved one in case of emergency and
so on. Furthermore, mobile phones nowadays are fully-equipped with cameras and other services
like Email, Entertainment and so on, which helps them a lot when it comes to capturing the
pictures of events or taking selfie-photos in public buses and sharing with their friends on the go.
As a result, people’s experiences could be aggravated if their phones were refused permission to
use. In fact, an ordinary cell phone today can easily be switched to silent/vibrate mode, this will
not distract surrounding people by its unintentionally disturbing features including: loud sound
and light screen.

To conclude, I personally believe that cell phones should be allowed in public places but with
some restrictions when using so that people can remain in touch with others whenever they need.

Men and women are capable of doing all jobs equally well. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
Sức / hiệu suất làm việc của nam và nữ là = nhau trong tất cả công việc
Productivity / Efficiency
Body 1: men better in … jobs
Body 2: women better in … jobs
Disagree – two-sided essay
It is commonly believed that both of genders have the same capacity of accomplishment for
doing the duty effectively. However, I completely advocate that being able to do business is
affected by the abilities of the sexes, and so men and women are not equal.

On the one hand, men and women have different capacity of physical strength. In many job
fields, business choices and ability are affected by this dissimilarity. It is particularly true for
those working in manual fields such as construction workers; indeed, the employers certainly
prefer men who require enough muscle power for their job vacancies. Besides, another evident
example for this disparity can be seen in the sports world where sportsmen often have better-paid
wages compared with their counterparts because of the more significant contribution to the
whole sports industry. That is to say, men are innately stronger, more competitive and more
aggressive, which makes their matches seemingly more sensational and dramatic.

On the other hand, another difference between men and women is that a kind of profession
requiring nuanced skills generally is more suitable for women rather than men. In addition,
women are able to be successful for these wide ranges of particular jobs such as painting,
sculpture and even bringing up a child. A questionnaire carried out to ask task abilities to women
revealed that they mostly considered that they are bound to tend delicate work which men are
sometimes too awkward to do it well.
To conclude, as long as people include an array of diverse abilities, especially related to genders,
men and women have different capacity of being able to do the career according to physical
strength and delicate talent.

The recent popularity of online shopping will result in the end of high street shops. To what
extent do you agree or disagree?

Many people believe that social networking sites (such as Facebook) have a huge negative
impact on both individuals and society.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The most essential component of a person’s life is his or her time at working place, and life
turns meaningless once no job satisfaction is obtained. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?

Plastic shopping bags are used widely and cause many environmental problems. Some
people say they should be banned.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some countries are struggling with increases in crime rates. Some believe that having more
police on the streets is the best way to reduce and combat crime.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Parents should get punishment in some ways if their children break the law. To what
extend do you agree or disagree?

Although there are a lot of translation software available, learning a language could still be
advantageous. To what extent do you agree or disagree?