U3 The Environment

3.1 Protecting endangered species

Many animal species are becoming extinct due to human activities on land
and in the sea.

What are the reasons and solutions?

Human society develops with a heavy cost on the animal world. A vast number of
different species are being pushed to the verge of extinction. Rapid
industrialization along with rampant (uncontrolled) illegal hunting are the driving
forces behind such a tragedy; and ordinary people should join with government in
an effort to protect wild, endangered animals.

By releasing massive quantities of pollutants, many heavy industries such as steel

and mining are inflicting tremendous damage in animals’ natural habitats. Forests
which are home to wild animals are being cut down to make way for factories and
fuel their operation. Furthermore, exploiting oil from oceans possibly leads to the
unfortunate disappearance of many kinds of aquatic creatures. Many incidents
where large schools of fish are killed have happened in consequence of being
exposed to chemicals and chemical waste from oil and gas mining rigs located out
at sea.

In addition, a lot of animals are being poached due to an increased demand for
products made from their body parts. In the wild, rhinos are illegal slaughtered for
their horns which are sold at high prices. Although laws and regulations are
implemented in an attempt to protect particular endangered species, it does not
seem to be effective enough.

There are, in fact, several ways to help protect wild animals. First of all, the
expansion of heavy industries should be stopped by law to keep the natural
environment for these animals untouched. Individuals should be well-informed
that their unnecessary needs are a large cause of animal suffering, and hence,
Last but not least, poachers should be deterred and strictly punished and more
wildlife sanctuaries should be constructed in order to shelter endangered animals.

In conclusion, humans are threatening the survival of many animal species when
they expand their factories and hunt out of greed. It is imperative to put
appropriate protection measures, as I have discussed, into place.

What are some of the effects of human activities on the environment?

There are many human activities that have a negative influence on the
environment. Firstly, a large amount of exhaust from transport vehicles which
contain a high proportion of pollutants is emitted in big cities. This causes the air
quality to deteriorate and directly pose a threat to public health. Secondly, many
industrial factories release chemical waste into water sources, which can destroy
aquatic ecosystems in many places. This not only has an impact on the survival of
aquatic creatures but also pollutes the drinking water for humans. Finally, forests
are being cut down to make way for factories and fuel their operation, which are
not home to wild animals anymore and decrease the contribution to provide the
oxygen. This kind of human industrial activity can possibly lead to the unfortunate
disappearance of natural habitats and some of the environmental degradation
phenomenon such as global warming and ozone layer depletion. In conclusion,
there are three main effects of human performance that affect dramatically to the
environment, which result in a decreased quality of air and water and losing the
wildlife habitats for many kinds of animal species.

What can we do to reduce our negative impacts on the environment?

There are number of things we can do to reduce the harm our activities cause for
the environment. Firstly, the Government should encourage the use of public
transport which often produces smaller quantities of pollutants. This can reduce
carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere and improve air quality in big cities.
Secondly, the dumping of chemical waste from factories into water sources should
be restricted, and some forms of punishment should be introduced to deter such a
Finally, in need of raising social awareness of pollution level, ordinary people
should be encouraged to boycott the consumption of plastic bag which take
thousands of years to be bio-degradable, in addition, using cloth bags in daily life.
In conclusion, there are three key actions to refrain the detrimental influences on
the environment, including the intervention of the Government and the actions of
the common people in accordance of regulations.

Some people think that international car-free days are an effective way of
reducing air pollution, however, others think there are other ways?

While international car free days are thought to effectively reduce the level of air
pollution, some people believe that there are other alternatives that are more
effective. This essay will discuss both of these views.

On the one hand, it is true that exhaust fumes from cars are a major cause of air
pollution as they contain a relatively high proportion of pollutants such as CO2.
By having some days without cars on the road, no harmful smoke will be released
into the atmosphere, and this will therefore improve air quality. This policy is
extremely effective in big cities around the world, such as Beijing, which is known
its atmosphere filled with smog. Since this car free days policy has been
introduced, the air quality of the city has greatly improved.

On the other hand, local governments should try to further encourage the use of
public transport, such as subways and buses, as they produce a smaller quantity of
pollutants, which in turn is less likely to impact air quality. In addition to this, the
disposal of waste, especially plastic waste which emits toxic fumes if burned,
should be closely regulated and monitored. The final and most effective way of
reducing air pollution is to use sustainable and environmentally friendly energy
sources, such as solar or wind power, to replace fossil fuels in the long term.
In conclusion, these measures are all effective in addressing the problem of air
pollution, but only to a certain extent, Such a problem needs to be dealt with by a
number of different approaches and I believe that only implementing one approach
will be ineffective.

Some people believe that the responsible for the protection of the
environment is by a transnational organization, rather than by each
individual country. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that protecting the environment should be the duty of each
individual nation, while others believe that it should be the responsibility of a
multinational organization. Personally, I believe that although each country needs
to be responsible for the protection of its own natural landscapes, there should also
be an international governing body that monitors each country’s actions.

First and foremost, the protection of the environment should ultimately be the
responsible of each individual nation and its inhabitants. A healthy and flourishing
natural environment is essential for healthy human societies. The people who live
in a country are the ones who will mainly be affected by environmental destruction
and damage within that country, and it therefore these people who should be most
concerned. When a country pollutes its atmosphere and waterways with toxic
emissions from heavy industry, the burning of fossil fuels and incorrect waste
disposal, the people of that nation must breathe that contaminated air and utilize
that polluted water, and this can have detrimental effects on people’s physical
health and well-being.

However, unfortunately, many countries governments are riddle with corruption

and the best interests of the people are not always maintained. Therefore, it is
necessary for an international organization to monitor and educate people about
the activities occurring within each country with regards to environmental issues.
Many people around the world simply do not realize the short and long-term
impacts that their actions have on the environment, and
I believe that education is one effective answer to help solve this problem. Another
cause of concern is that the actions of one country’s environmental destruction can
have negative impacts on nearby neighboring countries, and this is where an
international organization can help to monitor such circumstances.

In conclusion, although environmental protection needs to be the responsibility of

each individual nation, there should also be one transnational organization that
educates and monitors environmental concerns. There are many countries, yet only
one planet, and therefore there needs to be cooperation in order for a healthy and
sustainable future.

U1 Education

What are the benefits of pursuing university education?

There are many benefits of pursuing tertiary education. Firstly, a university degree
will open the door to better job opportunities. This is because universities offer
students a holistic learning environment, where students cannot only have a
chance to acquire theoretical knowledge but also cultivate practical skills.
Secondly, students are usually encouraged to participate in extracurricular
activities while pursuing higher education. This will enable them to improve soft
skills such as teamwork and communication skills. Finally, in this knowledge-
based society, people who are well-educated are likely to become more financially
comfortable because of their well-behaved at some of the foreign languages,
computer-literate skill and a wide circle of relationship throughout the university
life. In conclusion, it is clear that there are three obvious benefits of being in
higher education such as enhancing career prospects, improving social skills and
gaining a well-paid job in the future for university graduates.

What are the benefits of using technology in education?

There are many benefits of integrating technology into education. Firstly,

integrating technology into classroom will create an effective learning
This, as a result, will reduce teacher’s workload. Secondly, it is more convenient
for students who live away from school because they can still participate in online
courses. For example, learners can participate in virtual classrooms which are
allowed to attend lessons from anywhere in the world. Last but not least, due to
the distinctive advantages of online platforms, which provide learners with flexible
learning opportunities and become more computer-literate, can probably foster
student’s independent learning and cultivate the computer skill. In conclusion, it is
clear that there are three great deals of benefits of addition technology to learning
environment such as helping learners to study effectively and gaining some
practical skills no matter where in the world they live.

Is it neither possible nor useful to provide university places for a high

proportion of young people? To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people might argue that providing tertiary education for the majority of
young people is not possible and useful. Personally, I disagree with these ideas and
will outline my reason in the essay below.

Firstly, having a university degree no longer has a vital role to the future of young
people even in this knowledge-based society. In many countries, especially
Germany, vocational training has gained more popularity among young people
because it enhances employment opportunities as well as job security upon
completion. Furthermore, if everyone could get admitted to college, it would lead
to imbalances in the workforce that would greatly damage the economic structure
of a country. This is because there is little chance that university graduates would
choose blue-collar jobs such as working in factories, over the jobs that they are
qualified for.

Secondly, I think that it is impossible to provide almost all young people with
access to higher education. In VN, the demand for entering college never ceases to
grow. This puts the government in a dilemma of whether they should risk
allocating their resources and possible face a financial predicament due to
not to mention the fact that most departments are currently short-staffed.

In conclusion, I strongly oppose the idea of dispensing tertiary education to a high

proportion of young people owing to the arguments presented above.

Nowadays, some employers think that formal academic qualifications are

more important than life experience or personal qualities when they look for
new employees. Why is it this case? Is it a positive or negative development?

In this increasingly competitive society, academic university degrees are

considered to be more essential than hands-on experience by some employers
when they seek new candidates. Although there are some underlying reasons for
this, I still believe that this is completely a negative movement.

There are two factors to explain why some job recruiters prefer university
qualifications to life experience when recruiting new employees. Firstly, in many
professions, formal academic degrees seem to be the top priority of many
employers when selecting new applicants. In order to become a doctor, for
example, a candidate has to acquire a great deal of medical knowledge as well as
spend a lot of time to practice and carry out experiments. Secondly, this trend
might be a great way to save time for employee recruiters. Compared to formal
academic candidates who are likely ready to start working, employees may have to
spend time on training non-academic applicants how to work properly. Therefore,
this saved time can be used in other valuable ways.

However, I think that this is a negative development and both academic and non-
academic job hunters should receive equal chance in the recruitment process. This
is because many people decide to work right after school instead of starting
tertiary education in order to gain life skills and practical experience. On top of
that, after a long time of working in a real work environment, people are also
capable of doing most assigned tasks without a formal academic education. The
typical example can be seen in the case of Steve Jobs, a founder of Apple, who
was the most successful person in the technology industry without holding any
In conclusion, this trend is attributable to two main reasons, and I believe that this
is a negative progress for the above-mentioned arguments.

Some universities offer online courses as an alternative to classes delivered on

campus. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

Online learning has become a common feature of university education for some
time. In my opinion, this has both positive and negative impacts on student’s
learning outcomes.

On the one hand, offering online courses at university can be beneficial in several
ways. Firstly, those courses allow students to have a flexible learning schedule
because they are able to attend lessons at a particular time and place that they find
most suitable. This is particularly advantageous for students who live away from
campus. Secondly, students can have access to an unlimited amount of resources
on the Internet, the majority of which are free of charge. This can facilitate their
learning process and improve their independent learning skills.

On the other hand, online courses are a poor substitute for traditional classes
delivered at universities. These courses do not offer learners face-to-face
interaction which is still important to their understanding of the lessons. In
addition, this type of learning does not allow discussions between classmates
either, and without peer support, student’s learning outcomes might be affected in
an undesirable way. Furthermore, as a lot of self-discipline is required and there
are so many distractions from the Internet while studying from an online website,
students are more likely to procrastinate. This also contributes to lower results as
students may tend to lose focus during lessons.

In conclusion, having online courses available to choose at university might be of

much benefit to students in a number of ways. However, their drawbacks in terms
of decreased learning outcomes should be accounted for.
Schools are no longer necessary because children can get so much
information available through the internet, and they can study just as well at
home.

To what extend do you agree or disagree?

Since there is a wealth of information available on the Internet, students can study
by themselves at home just as effectively as they do at school; and therefore some
people believe that schools are not needed anymore. In my view, much I agree that
students can study at home with the help of the Internet, I feel that schools play a
vital role in our society and cannot be replaced no matter what.

There are ways for children to learn from the internet, most of which are either
free or affordable for almost everyone. One great way is from online newspaper
and video websites such as National Geographic and YouTube, which offers a
variety of topic areas suitable for people of different ages. Children can learn a
great deal of knowledge about culture, science, and many other areas which they
are taught at schools. Also, they can participate in online courses favored by a
growing number of youths nowadays. This type learning is even more
advantageous in the sense that children can flexibly choose to study whatever
subjects they are interested in.

That being said, my conviction is that formal education is irreplaceable in any

society. It is true that students can acquire knowledge at home very easily,
however, lack of teacher’s guidance and peer support is a clear disadvantage to
this form of learning, These factors are extremely important to a child’s
intellectual development, which emphasizes the necessity of school environments.
Furthermore, knowledge and skills are not the only things to expect from formal
education but social relationships and mental development. Children who go to
school and establish friendships can both have fun and improve their learning
outcomes.