Most countries want to improve the standard of living through economic

development, however, others think the social value is lost as a result. Do you
think the advantages of economic development outweigh the disadvantages?
Economic improvement boost country’s growth in all sectors. It eradicates
unemployment, poverty, homelessness, child labor and so on. Though it has
advantage some people believe that it will diminish vital social values.
Due to high standard education and professional people relationship are reduced.
Competition and passion to earn more money make people to work for more hours
which result in isolation of social contacts and even condense family relation. For
example, Information Technology professional who working for more hours to
meet his deadlines in his project loses his family members at dinner and arrive late
at late night which effects the family relation. People become selfish and will not
share or care others. Due to sedentary lifestyle people become obese and faces
many health risks.
Development in economy attracts more foreign investors to invest and open branch
in the country and creates more job opportunity. Attracts overseas skilled
professionals to get high pay. Provides high class education which intrigue foreign
students. In addition, it enables scientific research discoveries into desirable
products and medicines. Exporting and importing goods improves the economy
and provides foreign goods at cheaper prices. Increase in industry an factories
provide high quality good and products. High tech transport facilities and
infrastructure alleviate fast arrival and disposal of goods with in the country.
To conclude, by analyzing both the view, I deduce that economic benefits like high
standard life, high pay job is pivotal and also people have to maintain and improve
social values and compassionate to the society.
More attention is paid to being “responsible tourists” in order to preserve the
cultural and environmental aspects of tourist places. However, some people
think it is impossible to be a “responsible tourists” in the society. To what
extent do you agree or disagree?
With responsible tourism gaining popularity in more and more countries, some
people still doubt whether people can reduce the negative impact of travelling to a
minimum extent. In my opinion, being a responsible tourist by making rational
choices about our holiday and following some simple guidelines can easily help
protect the cultural heritages and preserve the environment of destination country.
First, we can reduce the destructive cultural impact tourism is having on
indigenous people. For instance, we can use local guides and drivers. Not only is it
a great opportunity to interact, but it encourages locals to learn about and take
pride in their history and culture. Also, booking directly with our hotel, without
intervention from third party booking agents, can be a great contributor to the local
economy, which in turn subsidize the investment in preserving the local culture.
Furthermore, by leaving only our footprints instead of having our names
emblazoned on the fragile walls or fingerprints on artifacts, we contribute to its
sustainability.
Second, it is easy to take some responsible steps to maintain or even improve the
environment status in the target area. If we take our litter with us and reuse the
water bottles, there will be less pressure on local waste disposal. Without changing
our sheets and towels every day and by using a shower timer, we save much water.
If possible, we can make it a habit to use eco-friendly products and services. For
example, we can use cloth napkins and cloth shopping bags to reduce the pollution
produced while travelling.
To conclude, as long as we are eco-sensitive and shoulder the responsibility we
ought to assume, we surely can ensure the destination as a whole benefit and make
it a better place to live in and visit.
Some people think schools should teach students to form good behavior in
addition to providing normal education. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?

Young generations always receive concern from every part of the society.
However, some people believe that whether children have good behavior or not, is
the duty of their parents and does not relate to the schools or the government. I
strongly disagree with this statement because all of these inputs play important
roles in the development of children. This essay will clarify my perspective.

The main reason why I believe that, as well as the parents, both the schools and
government have to take responsibilities in the ways children act with other people
is because they create the environments where children usually interact the most.
In other words, although family is the place where the kids are raised and parents
are the first people whom they communicate with, schools are the second place
where the young can make new relationships with friends and teachers. Moreover,
they can study how to make friends with peers and create companionship.
Furthermore, teachers also teach them principles and moral standards in society
which are really needed for forming the awareness and the behaviors of children.
Boarding schools are the typical example for this because students have to spend
most of their time at school and care taking from parents is not emphasized.

In addition, as well as schools, nobody can deny the role of the government in the
ways young people behave. To create helpful citizens, the government must
always focus on not only enhancing the education system but also holding social
activities to encourage them to integrate into the community.

In conclusion, besides parents, schools and government are partly responsible for
shaping children's characters. If all of these influences spend more attention on the
children, the society will have helpful and useful service from younger
generations.
Educationalists think that the program of international exchange visits would
benefit all students. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Education means imparting knowledge to a person and there are vast troves of
educational resources today. Some educationalists uphold the merits of
international student exchange while others have reservation about it. I am on the
view that advantages of it overweigh the disadvantages. This essay examines
different aspects of this issue.

On the one hand, there are some drawbacks of this programme of international
exchange, especially among teenage school students. Firstly, it may mislead the
students. Since teenagers are young and gullible, they are easily attracted by the
temptations and easy prey to pitfalls. Secondly, these exchange visits pave the way
to adopt different cultures and lifestyles which are not suitable for our customs and
values. In addition, it can be a financial burden to many students.

On the other hand, it is fairly easy to understand the numerous benefits of

exchange visits at international level. Primarily, it helps to improve the knowledge
level. That is these international visits are the platforms for students to acquire new
knowledge or information and thereby widen their education horizons. Secondly,
these programmes provide a wide range of exposure to the teenagers. From this,
they can come to know various students from different countries and they can
share their knowledge and information each other. Hence, they exploit to the wide-
spread world. Moreover, it helps to mingle with others in the society. Students can
identify and understand the various cultures, customs and values of different
nations and can acquaint with good values from them to upgrade themselves. In
addition, these programmes help in molding of personality and reforms them to
more independent and self-reliant.

To conclude, when we analyse the issue in depth, it becomes crystal clear that
international students exchange programme has more advantages than
disadvantages to school students. We should help and advise the students to
exercise their prudence and discernment and thus can avoid any pitfall.
Some people think young people who commit serious crimes such as robbery
or violent attacks should be punished in the same way as aldults. To what
extent do you agree or disagree?

The number of crimes committed by young people has been increasing quickly
recently. With regard to this issue, some people suggest that juvenile criminals
should be treated in the similar way as adults. Personally, I do not agree with this
opinion.

The argument in favor of the same punishments for both adult and young criminals
would be that everybody should be treated equally not relying on their age, but on
the factor of the violence of the crime. If children could get away from the
punishment of the crime they had committed when they were young, they would
think that there is not wrong with doing things like that and this thought would
lead to more serious actions.

Although I agree that juvenile criminals should be dealt with appropriately, I

believe that we should have a different kind of treatment for the young regarding
the crimes they have committed. Firstly, the children’s minds are still in the
developing phase. Normally, the young does not consider carefully before taking
all actions, not only committing crimes. With time, this part of their brains will be
changing and maturing. People who did stupid things, even unforgivable things,
when they were young can become good people when they are adults. Secondly,
the purpose of every kind of punishment is in order to make our society better, not
the penalty itself. Adolescents are the future of our generation, and we should
allow them to have a second chance to correct their mistake.

Therefore, the punishment for this age should focus more on education and
rehabilitation. However, from my standpoint, the best punishment for criminals,
especially young criminals is to prevent the crime before it is committed. By
giving children more caring and love as well as teach them laws when they are at
schools, we can reduce the crime rate among adolescents.
In some countries, the criminal trials are shown on TV and the general public
can watch them. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

In recent years, criminal trials have been televised in some countries to allow the
public an opportunity to watch them. I believe, although there are advantages,
making trials public can lead to too much injustice and other problems.

One of the main advantages of allowing court trials to be broadcast on TV is that

the entire judicial system is open to the public to watch and supervise. In some
countries where the judicial system is corrupt, it would be a step forward towards
more justice by televising the trials as it is overseen by the public. Another benefit
is that opening the doors of the court room allows the public rights to information.
The public have a right to know the details of trials so that they can form their own
opinions. This is important in countries where the government has restricted public
access to information.

On the other hand, allowing trials to be shown on TV has serious consequences.

Firstly, the public might form opinions which are based on mass media bias and a
lack of understanding of the legal system. This public and media pressure might
affect the outcome of the trial and justice will not be served. Secondly, the legal
team might see this as an opportunity to promote themselves which means they
may be distracted and not put all their attention into defending or prosecuting.
Lastly, the jury is supposed to decide the verdict but by televising the trial, the
entire public removes the effectiveness of a jury system.

In conclusion, regardless of the benefits, the disadvantages of an open televised

trial can be devastating due to public and media pressure which might result in a
lack of justice.
Students in university should specialize in one subject rather than develop a
wider range of many different subjects. To what extent do you agree or
disagree with this statement?

I think the issue about what is better to specialise in many subjects or choose the
one is a controversial one. Each option has its own advantages and disadvantages.
Some people prefer to specialise in one subject and know it very well. However,
others prefer to extend their range of interests and specialise in many subjects but
not in detail. Bellow I will give reasons to support my position.

From the one side, learning something in detail brings many benefits. First of all,
people gain more knowledge and experience in this area. So, after graduation, they
are well prepared for their further career in this field. Second, they do not spend
their precious time on other subjects. This gives them the opportunity to focus on
one subject.

From the other side, people who specialise in many subjects have more options to
choose from. For example, if a person does not make a decision about what he is
going to do after graduation it is a very good chance for him to try many fields of
study and make the right decision. In addition to this practical benefit, a person has
the opportunity to extend his range of interests, his communication skills and have
better conceptions of things around. Also, a person has a better chance to choose
what he really likes to do and make self-realization.

To sum up, I think that every person should have a chance to choose. Does he want
to specialise in one subject or he wants to take classes in many subjects?
Advertising has many positive economic effects but it also has some negative
effects to the society, because it will make people feel dissatisfied about who
they are and what they have. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
We are constantly surrounded by advertising, from television commercials, radio
advertisement or billboards to posters on the roads. People have different views
about the effects of advertising on our lives. In my opinion, there are both positive
and negative impacts of advertising.

There are two main reasons why it could be argued that advertising has several
benefits on our lives. Firstly, advertising plays an important role in the economy.
Companies need to tell consumers about their products and services. Advertising
informs us about the choices we have and the use of the products. For example,
Kelling ' cornflakes have a variety of flavours for different ranges to offer for
different age groups and now also for people want to lose weight, thus giving
consumers different choice to select from. So, without advertising, we would have
fewer choices.

Secondly, advertising is a creative industry that employs many people, therefore

providing jobs opportunities and income for many people. So, without advertising,
there would be higher unemployment rate.

On the other hand, it is understandable why some people might think that
advertising is a negative part of our lives. One problem is that advertisers often aim
their marketing at the young age groups. Children, for instance, can easily be
influenced by advertisements. So this put pressure on their parents to buy them
things by pestering and nagging. Another problem is that many advertisements
manipulate people too badly. Capturing the minds of consumers is the main
intention of the advertisements. Thus by persuading people that buying a product
will make them happier and with higher social status.

In conclusion, there are convincing arguments both for and against advertising, but
I believe there are both positive and negative aspects of advertising. And I
recommended that Advertising should be regulated and advertisements which
aimed at children should be controlled or even banned.
Some people believe countries have moral obligations to help each other,
others worry that the aid money cannot get to the poor of this world. Discuss
both sides and give your own opinion.

With the process of economic globalisation, many countries and regions have
strengthened cooperation and liaison in the fields of industry, agriculture, trade and
finance. In order to dedicate to the mutual development, many developed countries
spare no effort to help the poor countries by means of technological, medical and
financial aid, which, to my mind, is quite essential to the development of the
world.

Firstly, aids from developed countries optimise people's living standard and
eradicate poverty in the poor countries. Due to the backwardness of science and
technology, people in some undeveloped countries and regions such as Africa,
Latin America and Asia suffer a great deal from poverty, hunger and the scarce of
water. International aids from developed countries have improved their living
environment and helped them with the development of agriculture, industry and
economy.

Secondly, international aids give good medical care and help promote hygienic
condition in the poor countries. Malaria, cholera and smallpox were once severe
threats to people's health. With the help of the World Health Organization and
some developed countries, these diseases have been eliminated soon and the
residents in the infected areas survived these deadly diseases, which would have
devoured millions of lives without international aid.

Finally, aids to the undeveloped countries, in turn, benefit the donators. Due to the
limitation of natural and human resources, the production cost rises sharply in the
developed countries. With a view to reducing cost, many countries transferred their
assembly lines and production bases to the developing countries, which not only
solves the problem of low rate of employment in the developing countries but also
make full use of the local resources.

Nevertheless, some countries are showing great concern about the mal-expense of
their aid aroused by bureaucracy and corruption of some governments. Therefore,
the governments should take effective measures to utilise international aids
reasonably and prevent abuse. Only with the help of international aids, can our
world develop more quickly and steadily.
Detailed description of crimes on newspaper and TV can have bad
consequenses on society, so this kind of information should be restricted on
media. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

With the socio-economic development, there has been increasing in the number of
crimes in many countries around the word. Some people think that the detailed
describing crime is not essential and appropriate. To my mind, it is unacceptable
with this viewpoint for several reasons.
First of all, thanks to criminal description on TV and newspapers, more and more
people have become aware of the different crimes. It is admitted that this
information has been valuable and people have a better understanding about the
planning of criminals as well as preparation for doing crimes. Furthermore, people
are willing to participate in catching law-breakers with authorities. Therefore,
people will play more important role in crime prevention.
Another reason is that the detailed criminal description on the media has been
considered as absolutely essential legal channel to education people. Obviously,
people who have an intention of committing serious crime, this description will be
a huge barrier to deter people from doing crimes because law-breakers have to
think before committing crime. What is more, investigative authorities really need
this description because they make investigation more quickly and exactly to have
an adequate punishment for offenders for the purpose of educating others. For
example, Vietnam is a country where this description has been provided in
criminal procedure law, the rate of crimes goes down significantly.
It seems to me that criminal case should be described on the media. This plays a
crucial role in crime prevention as well as criminal investigation. What
governments need to do is to promulgate a legal framework to force TV and
newspapers to have this daily description.
Government funding should only provide scholarships for the best students.
All other funding of universities should come from student fees and private
organizations. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, chances to study at a university is open to everybody. Some

universities have been funded by government, commercial companies and other
sources. These funds are usually used to offer scholarships for excellent students.
This essay will discuss why funds from government should not only use for
scholarships because of increasing student fees, lack of funding sources and
affecting to other students’ activities.

Firstly, using all finance from government offering scholarships increases student
fees. For example, excluding money from government, universities require more
money to operate such as calling sponsors or increasing student fees. Furthermore,
this will be increasing fees that student has to pay to study. Therefore, studying
fees will be increased.

Secondly, lack of funding sources is one of reasons that all government resources
do not use to give studentships only. For instance, operating a university expects a
great deal of money. Without using government finance, universities have to
attract more supports from other sources such as business corporations. However,
there are not all colleges having good relationships enough to raise funds. The
support is only established if the university is able to offer benefits to these
organisations. Consequently, other financial sources are not always available for
all universities.

Finally, activities for other students are reduced because of limited resources. In
addition, if a part of money is used to offer awards, the rest using for university
events, meeting, parties or other students’ activities will be reducing. Furthermore,
the social activities of university is less attractive leading to less student joining.
As a consequence, using government funds for scholarship purpose only affects
other students’ activities.

In conclusion, funding from government to offer scholarships only provides many

disadvantages such as the raising of student payments, reducing university
operations and dropping student’s events. All financial sources should be issued to
different operations rather than excluding government funding for scholarships. In
the future, universities will looking forward to inviting more funding sources to
improve their operations.
In many countries, women are able to join the armed forces now on the equal
basis of men. however, some people think only men should be members of the
army, navy and air force. Do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, many people think women should have the same rights to obtain work
as men do. Some of them also think governments should accept women soldier in
their military organizations such as the army, navy and the air force. I tottaly agree
with the former opinion, but not quite with the later.

because of equality between and women, the number of female presidents,

deputies and doctors is increasing. The majority of people think about this trend as
a good thing. Therefore, it is no wonder if some women want to join the military
wanting to protect their own nations and families by themselves.

However, to maintain security, sometimes it is inevitable for soldiers to kill

somebody who acts against their social rules such as terrorists. In my personal
opinion, this may not be appropriate and seems even contradictory for a woman
who raises her children. On the other hand, male soldiers have done the same thing
for a long time, maybe since the primitive times.

Still,I would like to say that women should work in safe fields, for instance as
teachers, secretaries, sales people and so on. If they really want to join armies, it
would be best to work in supportive departments. To collect information or in
transportation that plays an important role in the army and it helps in protecting
their countries.

In conclusion, I think both men and women should have an equal right to get jobs.
However, working in a military organization may be, in my opinion, one
exception.
The increase in the production of consumer goods results in damage to the
natural environment. What are the causes of this? What can be done to solve
this problem?

The increase in the production of consumer goods has resulted in triggering the
environmental pollution. However, people are unlikely to refrain from using these
products, due to the considerations of preserving the natural environment.
Nevertheless, some possible measures could still be taken into account to address
this issue.
Nowadays, the planet's population continues to grow. It is understood, of course,
that this results in increasing the demand for such goods. In terms of cleanning for
instance, they use products such as detergent to wash their clothes, shampoo and
soap for taking a bath and so forth. They have become the most important items in
human life. Thus, it is undoubtedly true that using consumer goods products is
important to humans.

However, an increasing demand to use consumer goods has negative effects to the
environment. For this reason, the government should introduce the additional rules
and regulations to make the waste disposal procedures more environmentally
friendly, and to encourage companies to pay more attention to the cause of
protecting the environment. Additionally, people should buy less of these products
- hence, contributing to the environmental protection on an individual level. By
doing so, the environment will be more preserved.

In conclusion, it is undeniable that consumer goods play an important role in just

about anyone's life. However, people need to apply an active effort while keeping
their consumerist anxieties under control. Therefore, the environment will be
protected
Some people think health care should be free for everyone, while others think
they should pay medical costs by themselves. Discuss both sides and give your
opinion.

Medical system plays an important role in public services. People always pay more
attention on the policy of healthcare and some of them support that there should be
a free access to hospitals. However, others may think medical fees should be paid
by people themselves. Two different opinions both have their advantages.
Firstly, if free healthcare is set in one region, it is no doubt that the average life
span in this region will increase. Because people, especially the poor, will not
worry about the medical fee. People will be more willing to go to hospitals because
they are free, which enables doctors to find potential risks in patients and prevent
some chronic diseases. Besides, free access to the healthcare also allows interns in
hospital to have more chance to diagnose a variety of patients for more people will
come to hospitals. Interns can start from diagnosing some slight diseases and this
allows them to gain practical experience, contributing to the medical quality.
But some supporters of self-paid medical treatment may think that if people pay
their own fee of the medical care, the burden on the taxpayers will reduce.
Governments will use revenue to fund hospitals if they are free, and this action will
indirectly affect taxpayers. If people pay their own budgets, hospitals will have the
source of income and may run by themselves. It is also good for economy because
hospitals will also provide profits.
My opinion is that governments can reduce the cost of medical treatment but never
set it for free. Some policy like ‘people with different income level may enjoy
different cost of medical care’ can be made to help ensure that everyone in country
can get the access to the hospital without increasing the burden on taxpayers
dramatically.
An increasing numbers of people change their career and place of residence
several times in their lives. Is it a positive or negative development?
It is believed that a lot of people have decided to change their jobs or workplaces,
and living areas as well. Despite some negative developments that do exist, I
personally believe that the changing activity is a positive development.

On the one hand, some potential risks may occur when people decide to change
their jobs or residential areas. There is a risk that they might not perform well in
their new roles, or not welcomed by the other employees. Besides that, there is also
a chance that the new neighbourhoods have high crime rates or the weather might
not be friendly. However, changing a career and a living area is an essential thing;
therefore people should study, do some researchers, analyse all of the problems
and try to mitigate the risks before they make a decision.

On the other hand, it is true that when people changed their careers and area of
living, they could find some benefits. Firstly, as people changed their works, they
might become more successful than in their previous careers. In certain situations,
some people might have felt that their current jobs are not in accordance with their
passions. Therefore they prefer to change their occupations into other jobs which
are more suitable for them. Secondly, living in new places, or new cities give them
the opportunities to experience new things. They could feel the experiences of
having new friends, learn new languages or even feel the different weather
conditions.

In conclusion, I personally think that changing a career or living place is a positive

development, as people could achieve higher careers in their lives and get more
experiences in their life.
Some people believe the purpose of education is to prepare people to be useful
members for society. Others say that the purpose of education is to achieve
personal ambitions. Discuss both opinions and give your own opinion.

Nowadays, more and more people are concerned about the purpose that education
serves. Some people state that education is as the tool for the advantages of
society, while I believe that education fulfill the individual target.
On the one hand, it is clear that students with the best education perform the high
level of moral standard than who absorb the low level of education. This is because
education help foster in the young the morally sound values and outlook on the
world and life. Moreover, these students are able to realize the importance of being
a part of public service such as work as volunteers, take part in charity
organizations to improve the society. Therefore, it is important that education
provided the numbers of individuals for the sake of society.
On the other hand, in the modern life, an increasing number of people pay attention
about the ambitious for their social status or earning a lot of money. I believe that
the main purpose of education is to satisfy the personal gold. This leads to students
make an attempt to be master in many fields as much as possible. For example,
students are tending to into high and higher education for becoming qualified
employees to earn a living and achieve life value. It is cannot deny that with the
sustainable education of various knowledge and practical and professional skills,
which is a prosperous road for personal freedom and fulfillment.
In conclusion, the major function of education is to reach individual satisfaction
like power and money. Besides, education also helps people have proper in
perspective.
Nuclear energy is a better choice for meeting increasing demand. Do you
agree or disagree?
Nuclear power has some benefits that other energy does not do. Firstly it is a
sustainable energy source, meaning that it can be used to produce electricity
without wasting limited natural resources like coal, oil or gas. As everyone known,
fossil fuels are being consumed at an alarming rate. Secondly, it is cleaner than the
fossil fuel, in other words, it can help us reduce carbon setting out which cause
global warming. Finally, with the improvement in nuclear technology, it can
provide more work opportunities and also make the industry do some innovation to
become more efficient.

On the other hand, there are some aspects against these arguments. The safety of
nuclear power is a considerable question. Once there is a dangerous accident
happened, it would be a disaster. Thousands of people will be affected or be hurt.
In addition, nuclear power station would cover a enormous areas, getting rid of it
own square, nobody wants to live near it. Moreover, it is a high costs to build a
nuclear station, the expensive spending will impose a heavy financial burden on
government.

In conclusion, I do agree with the opinion that nuclear should be used more or less
in some countries, such as some developed countries. However country’s
development has been driven by technological and scientific breakthroughs,
authorities are expected to improve country international status and rise citizens
standards of living.
The range and quality of food have been improved with the development of
technology and scientific advance. Some people think it is good and others
think it is harmful. Discuss two sides and give your own opinion.
Nowadays, technological and scientific advances have changed the range and
quality of food, but they also induce unsafe for our health.
It is clear that, the range of food has expanded according to technological and
scientific innovations. Many kinds of food have been introduced over time. It is
easy and available for us to buy processed food, so we have not to spend much
time for preparing meal everyday. It is comfortable and convenient for every one,
special for busy people. Technological and Scientific innovations help firms to
produce mass products, so a large amount of food is produced in short time to meet
consumers’ demand.
However, technological and scientific innovations can induce harmfulness for food
consumers. Many chemical substances that producers use for processing food and
breed animal may cause diseases such as cancer, diabetes,… Unfortunately, we can
not recognize dangerous chemical substance in food until Health Protection
Organizations investigate and give their alarm.
In conclusion, while technology and science improve the range and quality of food,
they may be dangerous for our life and health, so we should be careful for
choosing food to use.
It is not necessary to travel to other places to learn about culture and people,
because people can learn from books, films or the Internet. Do you agree or
disagree?
There is an argument that people who want to study foreign cultures can stay at
their country and learn from reference resources as movies and books or the
internet. While I believe that this is a good way to expand human's horizons about
various countries, I also think that traveling abroad still plays a vital role in
discovering new cultures.

it is undeniable that books, films and the internet enable people to widen their
horizons about foreign cultures without traveling abroad. In fact, thanks to
innovations in information technology, nowadays, the internet is available for a
huge range of information including knowledgeable information about cultures
around the world. Similarly, various books and films relating to cultural
knowledge and travel that have been published and produced, which are helpful
materials for whom loves tourism. What I want to emphasize is that those kinds of
information resources can open an avenue for people with insufficient time and
money for traveling oversea.

On the other hand, many people in favor of traveling abroad argue that experience
of foreign cultures from real trips to other countries is much more precious than
cultural knowledge from books, movies or websites. In fact, it is much more easy
in order to learn new cultures when people can experience from the reality rather
than learning from reference materials. People could know that Vietnamese
cuisines are very delicious as many authors describe in travel books, however, they
could not have the real tastes of Vietnamese foods if they do not go to Vietnam.
Additionally, people might not feel that how beautiful Vietnamese cultures in Tet
holiday unless they enjoy this holiday with Vietnamese.
In the past, people lived in the same place in their life. However, it is common
that now people change their place where they live several times during their
life. What are the reason for this? It is a positive or negative development?

It is believed that a lot of people have decided to change their jobs or workplaces,
and living areas as well. Despite some negative developments that do exist, I
personally believe that the changing activity is a positive development.

On the one hand, some potential risks may occur when people decide to change
their jobs or residential areas. There is a risk that they might not perform well in
their new roles, or not welcomed by the other employees. Besides that, there is also
a chance that the new neighbourhoods have high crime rates or the weather might
not be friendly. However, changing a career and a living area is an essential thing;
therefore people should study, do some researchers, analyse all of the problems
and try to mitigate the risks before they make a decision.

On the other hand, it is true that when people changed their careers and area of
living, they could find some benefits. Firstly, as people changed their works, they
might become more successful than in their previous careers. In certain situations,
some people might have felt that their current jobs are not in accordance with their
passions. Therefore they prefer to change their occupations into other jobs which
are more suitable for them. Secondly, living in new places, or new cities give them
the opportunities to experience new things. They could feel the experiences of
having new friends, learn new languages or even feel the different weather
conditions.

In conclusion, I personally think that changing a career or living place is a positive

development, as people could achieve higher careers in their lives and get more
experiences in their life.
When new towns are planned, it is important to build more public parks or
sports facilities than shopping centers for people to spend their free time. To
what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that when new towns are built up, it is more necessary to
construct public parks or sport facilities instead of shopping centers. Personally, I
agree that building public parks and sport facilities should be encouraged in new
living areas. However, I also believe that launching shopping mall is indispensable
in the areas, because each item brings different benefits for society.

On the one hand, building public parks and sport centers is the necessity that will
provide people places to do exercises or outdoor activities such as jogging,
running, or cycling and so on. This helps residents to be more energetic and their
body is relaxed after a long day of a sequence of stressful and pressure works,
even, doing exercises help people to prevent the risk of diseases such as diabetes,
obesity, or high blood pressure. Therefore, people's health will be improved and
the average longevity of population will be higher. Another reason that advocates
the idea is boosting interaction among people. Public parks will be places where
people have chance to meet others and socialize with them. This is also another
effective way that allows residents to relieve stress and pressure.

On the other hand, shopping centers play a vital role in society and they are
indispensable in any living regions. That is because shopping malls are considered
as suppliers of different kinds of product for people that are used to serve their
lives such as foods, cloths, and so on. Thus, to meet the diverse needs of products
of people, shopping malls should be invested and built on new town. Moreover,
running shopping malls will bring benefits for society. Taxes that government
collects from these centers will be used to invest in others such as health care,
traffic system, education, etc, and citizens are beneficiaries from this.

In conclusion, parks, sport facilities and shopping centers are the indispensable
projects, which government should invest to them, because they own many
advantages that society and individuals are beneficiaries.
Children today are difficult to concentrate or pay attention in schools. Why
do you think causes this problem? What do we need to do to solve this
problem?

Children nowadays face many more distractions from outsite world, which make
them find more difficult to concentrate on their studying at school, than they did in
the past. This essay will adress the main reasons for this phenomenon and propose
solutions.

The decrease of students’ ability to focus in class can be accounted for two
primary reasons. Firstly, the appearance of high-tech gadgets such as smartphones,
tablets, etc. plays a major role in distracting students from studying. Apparently,
such entertainment tools are so exhilarating as they frequently update puzzles,
missions and give rewards to keep children playing. As a result, many youngsters
become addicted to those electronic devices and refuse to engage in any
educational activity at school. Secondly, conventional teaching methods might not
meet students’ needs which make them want to focus less. Strict rules, dry lessons
and pressure of achieving excellent results at school seem to urge children to quit
studying. Furthermore, if a youngster is a student with attention decifit disorder,
traditional methods will make the situation worse.

The issue that mentioned above needs to be handled properly by several solutions.
First of all, schools and parents must support each other to force children to quit
the habit of using high-tech gadgets all the time. Schools should impose a policy
restricting students from using electronic devices in class, whereas parents can
limit youngsters’ hours for watching TV and using computer at home. Secondly,
schools should consider changing the teaching methods as well as the examination
system. For example, eliminating outdated technology and adopt the up-to-date
one is one of many helpful options that could encourage students to conduct
research using electronics gadgets. Finally, with the students with mental
disorders, providing special care and applying some other particularly suitable
methods are certainly better than forcing every children to improve at the same
pace.

In conclusion, there are two main reasons that explain why students find it hard to
focus at school and if immediate actions are taken by both parents and schools, this
issue would be resolved properly.
Many customs and their traditional ways of behaviors are no longer relevant
to the modern life and not worth keeping. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
It is true that many older people believe in traditional values that often seem
incompatible with the needs of younger people. While I agree that some traditional
ideas are outdated, I believe that others are still useful and should not be forgotten.
On the one hand, many of the ideas that elderly people have about life are
becoming less relevant for younger people. In the past, for example, people were
advised to learn a profession and find a secure job for life, but today’s workers
expect much more variety and diversity from their careers. At the same time, the
‘rules’ around relationships are being eroded as young adults make their own
choices about who and when to marry. But perhaps the greatest disparity between
the generations can be seen in their attitudes towards gender roles. The traditional
roles of men and women, as breadwinners and housewives, are no longer accepted
as necessary or appropriate by most younger people.
On the other hand, some traditional views and values are certainly applicable to the
modern world. For example, older generations attach great importance to working
hard, doing one’s best, and taking pride in one’s work, and these behaviours can
surely benefit young people as they enter today’s competitive job market. Other
characteristics that are perhaps seen as traditional are politeness and good manners.
In our globalised world, young adults can expect to come into contact with people
from a huge variety of backgrounds, and it is more important than ever to treat
others with respect. Finally, I believe that young people would lead happier lives if
they had a more ‘old-fashioned’ sense of community and neighbourliness.
In conclusion, although the views of older people may sometimes seem unhelpful
in today’s world, we should not dismiss all traditional ideas as irrelevant.
Some people believe a country will benefit greatly by a high percentage of
young people go to university,others argue that it only leads to graduate
unemployment.Discusses both and give your own opinion.
It is not uncommon these days that the universities in many countries across the
world enlarge the number of enrollments,which might be a beneficial way to
contribute to the nations.However,some people claim that this way will raise the
unemployment rate of graduates.
Evidently,academic qualifications are essential for getting a reasonable
career,especially when the competition in the job market is becoming increasingly
harsh.Rising up the percentage of young individuals who will enter the universities
may not only afford more people the opportunities of acquiring knowledge,but it
also may improve their competitive abilities in their countries as well as the
international world.Moreover,a country may profit from high percentage of the
college graduates as they have the strong awareness of basic law and
morality,which may help the nation develop safe and stable.
Even so ,it is obvious that not all the students graduate from university can be
employed.For instance,someone who do not behave well in the college may not
find the job when he/she graduate.However,if the universities create better
academic atmosphere,improve the quality of teaching and fulfill the students’
potential,the most graduates would finally get a decent job instead of being the
members of unemployed men.
Overall,in my opinion,although the high percentage of young people go to
university may lead to some of them unemployed when they graduate,with the
educating quality advanced and the great efforts the young people have made,they
will finally find their position in the society and contribute to their countries.
In many cities, planners tend to arrange shops, schools, offices and homes in
specific areas and separate them from each other. Do you think the
advantages of this policy outweigh the disadvantages?

Some city planners propose that cities should set up separated region for malls,
educational facilities, office buildings and residential areas. Although I
acknowledge that this suggestion has its downsides, I would argue that it is
generally beneficial.

It is true that dividing areas for different use may cause environmental problems. If
students and commuters have to travel a long distance on a daily basis to school
and working place, it means that large volume transportation is involved, which
causes an increase of greenhouse emissions. This is particularly the case for those
who choose private cars as their means of transportation, which have been burning
a large amount of fossil fuel every year and contributing to global warming.

On the other hand, by setting separated regions with distinct purpose can alleviate
traffic congestion. When most citizens are living in the same area and working in
another certain district in the same direction, they have to go the same way every
day. This mean that during rush hours, traffic will flow faster and more efficiently.
This will be more pronounced when transport sectors reset the traffic light to
shorten waiting time according to the direction of the major traffic stream.

In addition, if this proposal is taken into action, it would be economical for

governments. Different types of buildings need different sorts of infrastructures,
such as sewage systems and power and water supply facilities. Instead of
constructing these facilities for buildings spreading randomly in cities that have
different requirements, governments can concentrate on one particular kind of
infrastructure in one region. This can save considerable amount of budgets.

In conclusion, on the whole this proposal of separating different facilities from

each other is positive, although I accept it may have some drawbacks.
Some people think that governments should do more to make their citizens eat
a healthy diet. Others believe that individuals must take responsibility for
their own diet and health. Discuss both view and give your own opinion.

It is common for citizens in a modern society that suffer from a series of health
problems. Some people believe that the government should shoulder the obligation
to ensure its citizens to have healthy diets. Others claim that individuals should
take responsibilities for their own healthy diets. I suppose having healthy diets
needs efforts both from the government and individuals.
To begin with, we have to admit that the government has the duty to encourage its
citizens to have a healthy diet, as it is the administrator of the country. Ensuring
that every citizen has a healthy diet needs large investment and long-term efforts,
which may be beyond the capacity of private companies. Meanwhile, the
government can carry out some policies to encourage citizens to have healthy
diets, which may be more persuasive. Moreover, the government can get easy
access to media, and the policies can be easily publicized all around the country,
which would arouse public awareness of having healthy diets.
At the same time, we should not ignore the efforts of individuals. If every
individual can resist the temptation of unhealthy diets, there will be a large step in
the country. For instance, people can eat less fast food which contains a huge
quantity of oil and calories. Moreover, citizens should learn to balance their diet
which is beneficial to their health. For example, they need to eat more fresh
vegetables and fruit filled with vitamin C, which is good for people’s health.
Overall, it is necessary for the government to take responsibilities for citizens’
healthy diet. Meanwhile, individuals have the duty to pay more attention to their
diets, which have significant effects on their health.