Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

In order for a business to be

successful, it must put more money into advertising.

Companies often have to face a dilemma when putting money into advertising. While some would
argue that more money should be put into advertising while others oppose. From my own
perspective, although better advertising contributes to the promotion of the products, it is
unnecessary to put more money into it.
Admittedly, a business is supposed to invest more in advertising. Some people contend that more
money put into advertising allows a business to promote their products with high time efficiency.
With more money in advertising, the advertisements are likely to be more attractive to consumers,
hence the products are effectively promoted. For instance, if a business spends more money to
apply the film’s special effects into an advertisement, the consumers might be deeply impressed
when seeing it, which would drive them to learn more about the products. Ergo, the products are
more likely to be more efficiently promoted with more money put into advertising.
Although more attractive advertisement contributes a lot, putting more money in it doesn’t have to
be a necessity. I believe that it would increase the diversities of its products if a business put more
money into the research and development of the products rather than advertising. For example, the
yogurt company could invest more and produce yogurt with more flavors to satisfy different
individuals. With more consumers satisfied, the products would be better sold thus the company
would get more profit. Hence, there is no need to put more money into advertising for economic
benefits as focusing on the products and investing more into their development could boost the
diversities thus also bringing profits.

In order for a business to be successful, it must put more money into advertising.

Sufficed to say, more money put in advertisement benefits the promotion of products.
Nonetheless, I argue that more attractive advertisement is not that crucial. Only after a business
concentrating on the products themselves and make them more diverse will their products become
competitive.

Official 55
The listening challenged the 3 reasons against planting trees in the box-shaped devices. The
lecturer pointed out that the 3 reasons stated in the passage are not convincing.
To start with, the listening denied that the devices cost too much to grow trees fighting against
desertification. The professor pointed out that the device can be removed after the trees growing
up and can be reused up to 20 times. Though the device cost 25 dollars each, the price to grow
each tree is reasonable as the device is recycled. Ergo, the professor refuted the view that the
device is unaffordable.
In addition, the listening contradicted the point that it is impossible to ask local residents to
maintain these devices. She argued that though the trees would not be served as food, the devices
will benefit local people with other rewards. For example, they can water the vegetables with the
water collected by the devices. What’s more, the branches can be used as firewood after the trees
growing up. Hence, the lecturer refuted the assumption in the passage.
Finally, the professor questioned that the trees grown in the devices fail to survive after removing
the boxes. She asserted that the trees can live through harsh conditions. The devices allow the
trees to grow long roots which can penetrate the dry surface of the desert and absorb underground
water, thus the trees can survive even after the devices are removed. She illustrated the point with
the example in Sahara desert as 90% of the trees survived after these devices are removed.
Therefore, the listening undermines the assumption in the passage.