Governments should spend more money on railways rather than

roads.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

What do you think of their answer?

Some people say that the government ought to allocate more of their
budget to rail than roadways. I totally agree with this statement and this
essay will first discuss how being fast is helpful by trains and second will
analyze how these are considered as less destructive for the environment.

Investing in a modern train system will mean that people can get around a
country faster. This is because train passengers do not have to deal with
the congestion that most road users experience and trains can achieve
much higher speeds than cars. Therefore, people will spend less time
commuting and more time doing something more productive and this will
benefit the entire society. For example, the British Government recently
unveiled plans to connect cities in the North of England with London via a
high-speed rail network and this will reduce commuting times by half,
allowing thousands of people in the Midlands to work in London.

Locomotives tend to be less harmful to the environment than cars. This is

due to the fact that a train can carry hundreds of passengers and this
prevents the use of hundreds of internal combustion engines, thus reducing
the amount of carbon emissions. If this is repeated every day over many
different routes, the reduction in carbon footprint is highly significant. For
instance, Ho Chi Minh City will soon open its first underground metro
service and this will reduce the number of cars and motorbikes on the road.
One of the main benefits to the city will be an improvement in carbon
dioxide levels because of the reduction in traffic.

In conclusion, the State should divert more funds to railway systems and
spend less on road transportation as this will improve journey times and
also be less harmful to the environment.
Every year several languages die out. Some people think that it is not
important because life will be easier if there are fewer languages in
the world.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

It is argued that the annual extinction of many languages is not a problem

because having just a few languages leads to a more convenient life. I
disagree that the convenience of using just a few key languages would not
be a viable solution. This essay will first discuss the importance of
language to culture and secondly the fact that learning a few common
languages is unrealistic, followed by a reasoned conclusion.

A language is not just a group of spoken words but the key to someone’s
culture. Language has evolved over thousands of years to reflect what it
means to be from a particular place. For example, the Irish language has
one of the widest vocabularies in the world and reflects their tradition of
storytelling. Despite this, English has become the first language of the Irish,
as many feel it makes it easier to communicate with the world.

By speaking just a couple of languages, such as English and Chinese, you

alienate billions of people throughout the world. English may be common,
but it is not the ‘lingua franca’ many people think it is and it would take
generations for everyone to learn it.  Countries like Korea and Vietnam
have been trying to adopt English as a second language for a long time,
but most of their people still can’t fully grasp it.  However, English has been
the language of business for a long time and it should be encouraged to
help a country become more economically competitive.

To conclude, commonly spoken languages may make life more

straightforward, but this should not be at the expense of less prevalent
languages, in order to avoid the erosion of culture and the alienation of
many countries.