Cricket has become more popular than the national sports in the sub-

continental countries.
What do you think are the reasons behind this?
You should write at least 250 words.
Model Answer:
Cricket, traditionally an English sport, is becoming increasingly popular in other parts of the world like Australia,
South Africa, Indian Continents etc. But the popularity is evidently the highest among the countries of the Indo-Pak
sub-continent, for reasons that are historical, anthropological, geographical, and even commercial. There are more
than 200 crore audiences of cricket only in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Srilanka and they are certainly the
highest part of cricket fans than another part of the world.
The game of Cricket came to South-Asia in the hands of the English colonists centuries ago and has seeped into the
hearts of the people here while the cricketers of here have won over the hearts of the English. This inter-continental
love-affair perhaps has made the south-Asians elope with the Bat and Ball from their national and ethnic sports. Also,
World Cup wins in the 80s and 90s, and phenomenal performers like Hanif Mohammed of the 50s and Sachin
Tendulkar of late, all have made Cricket more psychologically ethnic than the native sports of this region. Mother
Nature had her hand in it too. Cricket is compared with religion in the country like India. Even when the war and
conflicts hot the air of India and Pakistan, the stadium tied the friendship these two countries.

Some opine that South-Asians are natural cricketers. It has indeed been proven that the sub-continent players are
more adaptive to the physiological demands of Cricket compared to how they get naturalised to other international
sports e.g. Football, Basketball etc. Also, the climatic conditions here are relatively more suitable for playing cricket
compared to the climates of many other parts of the globe. Not to forget, the virtually uncountable population of this
region that continually fuels the ever-sprouting 11-member teams needed to stage only half of a Cricket game and
supplies the hundreds of millions of spectators to cheer the players. Altogether, it is like a match made in heaven,
“divine” enough to surpass any hereditary bond.

Commerce plays its own amazingly profitable part too. Cricket enthusiasts of here have become the primary
consumer base of many global enterprises who mass-charm the sub-continent customers through extravagantly
sponsored tournaments. ICC, the governing body of world Cricket, also cajoles the people here because of their
financial utility and cossets them from their sporting heredity. The national sport of the Indian sub-continent is only
official and in practice, they are not popular at all. The kids play cricket in the fields, streets, rain harvesting fields
and even in the terrace of the building. They show a little interest in other national sports and thus how the appeal of
those games are reducing.

Regardless of where it came from, the most certain conclusion to be made here is that Cricket is to stay and sustain
in the nourishment of the South-Asian pandemonium and will indefinitely reign over the people here like the God-sent
hero who conquers not only the matter but also the nativity.
o solve the ever-increasing environmental hazards throughout the
world, the best way is to increase the price of fuel.
What is your opinion on the above assumption?

You should write at least 250 words.

Model Answer 1: (Disagreement)

It is true that skyrocketing the fuel price can make a nosedive on the use of vehicles in many cities but curtailing the
volume of energy we utilise is not an elixir as it would soar the daily living expense as well. Hence, the human being
ought to scout out renewable energy in an attempt to halt the tide of environment upheaval.
To begin with, protecting the environment only through the buoyant price of energy sounds somewhat over-
optimistic. Developing other environment-friendly forms of momentum, such as hydrogen, which is the most potent
weapon to deal with this murky water is a far better solution. Despite the exorbitant price of fossil fuel, there is still a
kaleidoscope of transportation that will need it. And by extension, airplane would be a concrete example- although
the usage of these kinds of gigantic transportations is bound to dwindle, it is undeniable that they still emit a sheer
amount of carbon dioxide. Therefore, diving deeply into the domain of substitute energy can be served as a luminary
that close Pandora’s Box.

Besides the renewable energy and the colossal fuel price, rearing a myriad of flora can usher in a great
preponderance. What renders an easy access to oxygen is the vegetation which would absorb carbon dioxide – the
most malignant element to our environment. In this dimension, revive the biodiversity seems as important as
importance can be. Shielding the rainforest from deforestation and planting a broad spectrum of trees that spanning
from alpines to bush on the major boulevards can truly breathe life into the urban sprawl. Most importantly, it could
thoroughly eradicate the environment ailments.

With all that, it is reasonable to extrapolate that spurting the fuel prices can be described as a blunt instrument.
Nevertheless, impeding a wide range of anthropogenic activities and cementing the cornerstone of ecosystem might
be much more possible and practical to tackle with this elusive enigma.
Safety standards are important when building people's homes. Who
should be responsible for enforcing strict building codes – the
government or the people who build the homes?
Use your own knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.
You should write at least 250 words.

Model Answer 1:
(Viewpoint: People and owners should be responsible for enforcing strict building codes)
The population of the world is increasing and so does the needs for more houses, commercial buildings and other
constructions are escalating as well. The high rising buildings constructions, wood-house constructions etc. require
more safety & standard issues while this is being violated often and accidents related to building constructions are
increasing. Some people opine that Government is solely responsible to ensuring the safety and codes while others
believe that house owners are the persons who should be responsible. In my opinion, a government has a role in
setting the rules and following it but it the owners and authority of the building owners who should ensure the
standard and safety while constructing the houses and commercial buildings.

First of all, it is out of the scope for the government to appoint necessary manpower and monitoring system in every
place where the construction works would occur. Before building any house, people must take the permission from
the authority and build the house accordingly. But any accident occurs due to the lack of safety procedure; improper
use of tools and materials, unskilled labour, unnecessary rush would be because of the owner’s failure to comply the
codes.

The workers, who work for contractions; including the architect, engineer and labour, should know the safety rules
and codes and also should protest when they believe that a rule might have been violated and ignored. The labours
should never assent to work in a position which is harmful and risky for them, the engineers should maintain the
strict rules instead of blindly following the construction owners order and the local authority should time to time
monitor the constructions to avoid the hazards.

In conclusion, the Government does not have the necessary scope to monitor each & every construction in a country
and the house owners must know the safety procedures, standards and rules to make sure the safety.
Many office authorities impose a restriction on smoking within the
office premises. Some governments have even banned smoking in all
public places. This is a good idea but it takes away some of our
freedom.
What are your opinions on this?
Use your own knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.
You should write at least 250 words.
Model Answer 1:
(Agreement: Smoking should be banned in office premises and public places)
There is no scope of argument that cigarette smoking is harmful both for the smoker and people around him/her.
Cigarette smoking has two major effects on non-smokers-injurious passive smoking and smoking display that has an
invitational or persuasive effect on non-smokers. I believe banning smoking in public places and offices not only will
discourage smoking but will also keep the smoking practice out of site, though it might apparently look like
transgress into smoker’s freedom. But I believe any harmful activity of a particular person or group of people can not
be a definition of freedom. If smoking right in any place is a definition of freedom then why not other drugs? In m
opinion, every public place including office must be smoking free.

There are several reasons that government and private authorities are being strict on smoking in offices and even
public places. Firstly, this is an accepted fact that smoking is injurious and deadly to health in several ways.
Secondly, smoking causes health hazards to non-smokers who inhale smoke passively from the smokers. Thirdly,
smoking has a strong psychologically influence on others, particularly on children and young who learns from their
elderly. Fourthly, in many countries, the cost of health care and insurance has gone up due to smoking related
illnesses. So health authorities and governments are trying to have been seen that due to the restrictions, the habit of
smoking is on a decline among office goers.

Though non-smokers think that restricting smoking in offices and public places is a good idea, smokers often view it
as an intervention into their right. Smokers argue that cigarette smoking has a direct relation to their workplace
performance, though passive smoking can cause objections from colleagues. But considering the harm of smoking it
should be banned.

Though pressure groups such as tobacco companies may discourage restrictions on smoking, since the advantages
of ban outweigh the disadvantages, mass public support such bans. Moreover, offices have the right to regulate staff
behaviour and activities and governments too can ban smoking in public places for a greater societal benefit.

In conclusion, restricting smoking in workplaces and in public is a good idea. I can also understand the opinion of
smokers that banning smoking in such places limits their work speed but I believe with little practice and
determination they can overcome it. So I strongly support the idea of prohibiting smoking in any public place
including the office premises.
Nowadays, more and more foreign students are going to English-
Speaking countries to learn the “international language – English". It is
undoubtedly true that studying English in an English-speaking country
is the best way, but it is not the only way to learn it.
Use your own knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.Model
Answer 1:
(Agreement: It is NOT the ONLY way to learn it)

There is no debate that being in a real English language environment will help anyone to master the language in the
fastest and most effective way and many international students prefer to go to English-speaking countries to study
and learn the international language. I agree that this is a good way, yet students can learn English in other useful
ways and those can be even better than the first approach.

Being in an English speaking country helps students learn English in many ways. Firstly, the surroundings and
environment influence our learning. We are forced to speak, read write, and slowly we start even thinking in English
since we have to. Secondly, quick learning of the language can become a strong motivation because, in turn, we will
get quick feedback that lets us find what we learn really benefits us in life and education. This inspires us to continue
to learn more. It’s a positive reinforcement Learning builds on progressively. The initial learning serves as the basis
for further learning. Thirdly, in an English-speaking country, you will be learning from the life and culture which is not
present off that land.

However, in this age of cross-culture communication and Internet, learning English in an English-speaking country is
not the only way. The English language learning opportunities are available in many countries. Nowadays people are
able to find various ways of learning the English language in their home country that are highly effective and
productive. Watching English movies, television, listening to English music and browsing Internet can open up a vast
plethora of English materials. For instance, one can make use of the vast storage of materials (video, sound,
graphics, etc.) on the Internet to facilitate language study. Sometimes non-English speaking students may need a
different approach for learning English. The principle of “different students, different teaching”, by the famous saying
by Chinese guru Confucius, maintains that different teaching approaches are useful for different segments of
students. The way a foreign student learns a language is quite different from those of an English native speaker. For
example, a foreign student higher level; however, it is unnecessary for a native speaker. Last but not the least, on
some occasions, students may find teachers in their own countries do a better job in figuring out their exact weak
points and the remedies for them. A teacher of a non-English country understand the basic of a student and can
combine both the native language and English to make the study plan and this might be more helpful than a native
English teacher's approach of studying.

In conclusion, I believe studying English in English-speaking country is a good way but in many cases, the other
ways can be proven to be more efficient than being in an English speaking country.