C2 Writing Sample

Some high schools have a requirement that students must complete a certain
amount of volunteer work in order to graduate. What do you think about this type
of requirement? Give details to support your opinion.
As volunteer has been expressing more and more influence in society, some people hold the viewpoint
that volunteer should be involved in high school education. Thus, students must participate in order to
graduate. Others, however, take offence to this notion and consider it as a reluctance. From my
perspective, I firmly believe that high schools should adopt volunteerism as an ethical form of education
for the comprehensive mental and physical growth of children.

On the one hand, at first glance, the protestation to children's beneficence is due to people's egotism.
Thus, as facing some things seems to be no matter of them, they want to flee them for fear of being
involved in something unpleasant. Second, it is their selfishness that appears as an inevitable
consequence of their atmosphere that has failed to enhance their innate dignity. Thus, although moral
humanism is involved in their curriculum, it drains their beneficence that it does not have a chance to
sprout.

On the other hand, despite pessimism, volunteering is supposed to be adopted by high schools to fertilize
the happiness inside students. Indeed, it is proved that as a person is willing to give away something with
all this faith, the hormone related to cheerfulness culminate abruptly. Not only can this emotion benefit
students' soul development, but it also facilitates the business and study they will lead. Should the
volunteer lessons be adopted by the school, high school graduates can intensify their capacity in
circumstantial work and study. Second, the volunteer is able to promote students' beneficence to
contribute to society. Thus, although their attitudes over volunteer work might be different, students can
be conscious of the value of sharing and love in life. Furthermore, the beneficial volunteer is attributed to
their subsequent devotion.

All things considered, I take a firm stance that volunteer should be included in high school education for
students' emotional advancement as well as their following occupation. Not only can this civilised
adoption help the unprivileged, volunteer can also raise students' subsequent achievement and
amusement. This scenario, however, depends on schools' determination to seize what is appropriate.
Some people think that the purpose of TV news programs is to entertain viewers.
Others believe that news programs should be educational and informative. What do
you think the purpose of TV news programs is? Support your opinion with reasons
and examples.
As TV programs have been gaining more and more traction, recently, many people take up them as a
predominant part of their daily schedule. This trend has sparked a fiery altercation about what the main
purpose of TV shows is. While some people subscribe to the entertainment purpose, others declare that
the purpose of TV programs should be educational and informative. From my perspective, I firmly believe
that TV programs should be education-oriented for human's comprehensive physical and mental
amelioration. I will clarify my points below.
On the one hand, it is understandable that TV recreational programs arose as an inevitable consequence
of the accelerating need for recreational things. Firstly, the more modern and civilized people's life
becomes, the more drastically appetite to enjoy their glacious life synchronise. In response to that boiling
preference and the apprehension over wasting their life span, people are prone to spend time for
recreation in order to feel at ease and exultant. Nevertheless, it would not be right with the case of people
who seek entertainment to release themselves from work pressure. Thus, the distortion of TV programs
sprang up as an inevitable consequence of these preferences of entertainment.
Despite how compelling notions may sound, the habit of watching TV for entertainment only can bring in
a sedentary lifestyle and unknowledgeable mind, oppose what they are supposed to be the educational
ones which convey knowledge. Nonetheless, this lifestyle is prevalently adopted due to the conservative
veins which underestimated the problem. Even though the TV host's stories can be extremely hilarious,
most of them bear little resemblance to the realistic situations but the adoption of a sedentary lifestyle in
which hidden risks of acute diseases such as obesity and diabetes arise as an inevitable consequence of
the TV addiction. Alternatively, watching academic and informative programs is said to be such a self-
beneficial conversion. Not only they are likely to augment our mind with insightful consciousness by
stimulating us to practise our deductive ability, but they can also prompt us to adopt more healthy
activities. Thanks to this advantageous adoption, we can boost our productivity at both works at the office
and housework.
All things considered, I take a firm stance that TV programs are not supposed to serve recreation
purposes but the academic and cognitive ones. However, both the scenario and option depends on the
awareness of people over whether to seize what really benefits them or what release them.
Most medical doctors want to work in cities where they will make a lot of money.
Yet in many rural areas there are not enough doctors. What are the reasons for this
problem? How can it be solved?
In this day and age, there is a nerve-racking issue that most medical doctors want to work in cities where
they will make a lot of money, yet in many rural areas, there are not enough doctors. From my
perspective, the main reasons behind this are the poor living condition, low salary and the lack of
facilities. Consequently, it is integral to devise appropriate politics in attempts to tackle the problem.
On the one hand, it is comprehendible that most medical labour hopes to work in cities. First, they pay
admission to the living standard in cities which is more civilised in comparison with the rural. Second,
the disappointing experiment condition, as an inevitable consequence of the low living standard, baffles
them from launching into scientific studies that they are intended to. Additionally, it is nothing but
indisputable that, unlike their colleagues who reside in cosmopolitan tracts, the rural doctors don't land a
well-paid occupation that they are worth. Thus, they are not likely to satisfy themselves with modern
infrastructure and amenities, so on.
On the other hand, this issue is not insurmountable to be resolved. A common idea that is also rational is
to lift the pension of physicians to persuade them to work in rural areas. Even though that notion sounds
like a reluctant step, it is suitable to assuage their desire to live a better life. Additionally, it is also
advised to amplify the economic growth in the countryside to boost the life quality of residents and
obviously doctors. This, indeed, appears to be an innovative, inspirational vein to prompt the
governments to make dents so as to tranquillize the jealousy of the urban doctors as well as fulfil rural
physicians' aspire.
All things considered, I take a firm stance that rural physicians' migration to cities stems from their
aspire to live in a more advantageous place and gain good wages as their urban coworkers. It is highly
recommended that the government is supposed to consider lifting their annual salary and build up
sustainable economic development in the countryside to deal with this issue. Those veins, however, are
hard to be considered as exorbitant.
In some schools, students must study music and learn to play a musical instrument.
In other schools, studying music may not be required or there may be no music
classes at all. Do you think all students should have to study music? Support your
opinion with reasons and examples.
As music has been gaining more and more traction, several schools have required it as an integral
subject in their curriculum. Thus, students have to learn music and strive to take up a musical
instrument. Others, however, have few or even no music classes at all. As an inevitable consequence of
the differences between these two adoptions, the fiery altercation over them has not yet appeared to
stop. From my perspective, I firmly believe that music should be adopted for the possible contributions to
the students' occupation.
On the one hand, it is understandable that some schools adopt few music lessons. First and foremost, this
choice comes as a prioritization over core subjects such as Maths and Literature. Despite all public
notions of study, it is apparent that these subjects have been playing a vital role in technological and
human advancement. Second, the prevalent misconception about the value of music is attributed to the
family and social vocational tradition to adopt particular careers such as business, law or medicine
which are believed to stabilize well-paid wages for the children in the future. Nonetheless, in reality, it is
proved that rather than the glorious occupation, the occupations which are done with intensive relish and
devotion have more contribution to each person's fiscal stability.
On the other hand, despite what level of opposition might reach, music still remains too integral to ignore
its value. First, as the issue of mental anarchy of students due to academic pressure is yet to cease, music
is considered as an appropriate alternative tranquillizer for the problem. Owning to its preferable
sounds, students are able to unleash their strain. Additionally, the feeling of stress abandonment,
however, can contribute greatly to their academic absorption. Moreover, in the light of the dexterity
required to excel at playing instruments, this skill of students could also get ameliorated. As an
astounding consequence of this training, this capacity is quite needed in some particular
career, therefore is well-appreciated in career recruitment. Thus, taking up music classes at school in
advance must be tactful equipment for students for the future.
For all the mentioned above, I take a firm stance that there should have obligatory music classes at
school for the balance of pupil's emotions as well as vocational preparation. Not only can this adoption
create several comprehendible advantages, but it also devotes students ability to climb their career
ladder. This scenario, however, depends on both their and their parents as well as educators'
determination whether to seize what really benefits them or that are suitable for subjective hope.
For some people, making a lot of money is an important goal. Others think that
their free time is more important than wealth. Which is more important to you?
Explain, giving specific reasons for your choice

As money has been playing a far more predominant role in society, many people consider wealth as the
eventual goal of their lives. Regardless of this common notion, others declare that free time is more
integral than extravagance. From my perspective, I firmly believe that we should put the most intensive
emphasis on the value of free time.
On the one hand, it is conceptible that most people pay tribute to money. First, as the global population
has been rising relentlessly, the material competition's been more and more intense. Thus, needless to say
that earning enough money to satisfy the rudimentary needs is such a nerve-racking issue, especially in
the overpopulated, obsolete nations such as India or Pakistan. However, the desire for modern facilities
and amenities has not appeared to stop, which brings in an unprecedented aspire to make a lot of money.
On the other hand, despite how arduously people strive to make money, it is apparent that the value of
free time surpasses the money. Even though the visible possessions can fulfil human's need over the
necessities, they cannot be used to build up an admirable lifestyle with a stationary gladness. Individual
happiness, however, stems from the peaceful attitude and the abandonment of impermanent
materials. Therefore, free time should be invaluable to reach that milestone. Indeed, it is shown that the
spent time with family or for good hobbies such as playing chess or tennis in the most civilised nations
overperforms in the daily schedule which is ascribed to their incredibly high HDI standard. 
All things considered, I take a firm stance that the value of free time is far more vital than money over
both the individual and social happiness. Thanks to this blessing invisible one, we are not only able to
aim for real hidden happiness but also to lift society's living standard. In this way or that way, we could
also ameliorate our community's ongoing anarchy. This scenario, however, depends on the choice of each
person.