Writting Book 1

IELTS
WRITING TASK - 2
Net Content -30
THE MORE YOU SPEAK THE MORE YOU CAN WRITE

WRITE-1:
Write about the following topic:

Nowadays food has become easier to prepare. Has this change improved the way
people live?
Give reasons for your answer using your own ideas and experience.
Write at least 250 words.
Model Answer 1:
Food is one of the fundamental needs of human lives, and from the ancient period till
this ultra-modern tech-time people have invented different ways to prepare and
customise foods. The customs and ways people prepare foods and present to others
vary depending on the race, culture and country. But the most fundamental need of
preparing foods is to fulfil the very basic human need: hunger. Preparing foods was very
cumbersome in earlier ages but with the advancement of human knowledge and
technology, men have created many devices and made many new ways of easily
making foods. The number of restaurants and fast-food shops are ever increasing and
that have omitted the need to prepare the food at all. The advanced technology like a
rice cooker, meal cooker and easy availability of ingredients nowadays help people to
prepare food in no time and that has improved the way of people’s lifestyle.
People now spend less time preparing foods and can utilise this time in other tasks like
professional tasks, reading, entertainment and spending time with family and friends.
Thus people get more productive and social because of the increased time they have.
Quick food has become very popular which omits the needs of cooking and
professionals, students and business person are having those foods in their lunch time.
This is a significance improvement of saving time and using it more productively.
Though the fast foods have some health issues, the ever increasing popularity of it
shows the needs to have more time in our busy life and saving this time from the
allotted time from cooking. The cooking machines help the housewives to prepare the
foods easily and they do not have to spend time in a hot kitchen to prepare food. This is
a leap towards a modern life where foods can be prepared virtually anywhere and in few
minutes.
In summary, the improved way of cooking helps people nowadays to save time and
cook in a more convenient place. This helps them to spend time on more important
things and lead a life without much hassle.
(This model answer has been prepared by the site developer. However, please note
that this is just one example out of many possible answers.)
Idea Generation for this IELTS Essay:

Essay Type: Discussion Essay.
Main question of this IELTS Essay:
A. Has the easier food preparation process nowadays improved the way people
live?
Discussion Points: How the easier food preparation process nowadays improved
the way people live.
Ways how the easy food preparation has improved the way people live
nowadays:
 Having more spare time for other activities, like entertainment.

 Control their diet by the calculation of calorie being used by appliances.
 Decreasing the rate of danger. The rate of explosions has been decreased by using of
new appliances.
 People are able to prepare their food at their workplace or study by using appliances
like microwave ovens, rice cookers, coffee makers etc.
 Fresher products are more available thanks to the new technology of freezing.
 It saves time and people can get involved in more important tasks.
 Dependency on fast food shops and restaurant could be avoided.
 Saves the logs and woods needed to cook in the past time.
 It has reduced the workload for housewives and cooks.
 It is possible to cook a variety of foods with the help of latest technological devices.
Cases where this has failed to improve the way people live:
 Higher fat, salt, and less fibre applied on processed foods or fast foods have
increased the risk of obesity, hypertension, and cardiovascular diseases.
 Probable hazardous consequences of microwave radiation on humans’ health.
 Eating more meat products has increased the risk of cancer.
 Meals have become less tasteless compared to the traditional ones (GM foods).
 These latest home appliances for cooking consume electricity.
 Using of juice instead of fruit has led people to intake insufficient vitamins and
minerals.
[The above points should be helpful to aid you generating your own ideas and then
turning them into a nicely written IELTS Essay. Add any point you think we have missed
in the comment section.]
Model Answer 2:
Most of the food items that were hard to prepare and restricted to experienced chefs are
now easily available off the shelf or are made easy to prepare with modern recipes. But
like any other thing, this also has its advantages and disadvantages.
Firstly, most of these foods are high in saturated fats and eventually leads to obesity.
They cannot become substitutes to our staple diet that is still not so easy to prepare due
to nature of its cooking methods. For example, for most of the Indians, the staple diet
includes a combination of Indian bread, pulses and curries. It is not possible to make it
much easier even using modern equipment or methods. Secondly, most of the easy to
prepare food items either have a very little shelf life or they need to be kept frozen (or
both). Thus they cannot match the nutrition of freshly prepared traditional home food.
Having said that, these easy to prepare food items are a boon to students or other
people, who stay away from home. They are definitely better that eating in restaurants
or street food. Although not as good as home food, they definitely purpose the purpose
to get “home like” food. Also, most of these food items come with handy instructions and
pre-mixed ingredients. With simple instructions, anybody can cook most of the recipes
now. This has life easier for many across the globe.
With the advent of easy availability of raw ingredients, it has not become much easier to
cook recipes at home that was previously possible to cherish only in high-end
restaurants. For instance, the Italian pasta, which requires many types of sauces, is
now easy to prepare at home and all these sauces are now just a call away from a local
grocery shop.
In conclusion, this is a much welcomed and positive change and it has definitely
improved our lives.
(Written by Vikram Soni)
Model Answer 3:
Over the past decade, the food industry had tremendous growth and improvements.
This, together with technological advancements, has made it much easier to prepare
food and cook at home.
Ready-made meals, which are bought frozen or canned form the shops, are the great
life saver for those who work since all that is needed is to defrost or open the can and
enjoy. Although this is a method of preserving all the goodness, but the freshly prepared
food is definitely better for health. Many of the vitamins and minerals may be lost during
the freezing or canning process.
Technology, on the other hand, has speeded up the food preparation process. Kitchen
aid tools such as electric choppers and grinders reduce the entire workload and the
food can be prepared at the blink of an eye. Not only it requires less effort compared to
the past, but it also saves time, which can be put to other tasks.
The other technological advancement that has helped with food preparation is
microwave ovens. This device benefits from short waves that can penetrate food easily
and thus cook or warm the food very quickly. In spite of being a huge advancement and
time and energy efficient, long-term studies and scientific evidence are not supporting
the use of such devices and they are being blamed for at least minor risks if used on a
long-term daily basis.
In conclusion, the process of food preparation has become much easier nowadays and
this has had both positive and negative effects on our lives. Every individual should
consider wisely how to prepare their food to ensure good health.
(Written by Narges Mahmoudi)
Model Answer 4:
Food is one of the fundamental needs of the people. People are slowly increasing
passion towards the taste of the food and some people are becoming crazy about the
food .These people always require different tastes and invent new and easy methods to
prepare food. These new inventions always change the lifestyle and let us discuss how
it made the difference in our life.
Old is gold always. Certain people do not want to miss the raw taste and use the new
machinery like mixers or grinders. They want to prepare in old style without machinery
and grasp complete taste of food. Still, my grandfather never uses machinery and
enjoys the raw taste.
There is always another side of the coin. Nowadays, people are becoming busy and
don't have time to spend much for cooking food. So they started inventing new methods
which made cooking easy. People invented new types of machinery like gas stoves,
induction stoves, cookers, mixers and so on. All these inventions changed people's
lifestyle. It saved people's time and people started investing time in other activities. And
these new inventions also produced good taste and different varieties and caused a
dramatic change in lifestyle. I always use all possible machinery to prepare tasty food
for my family. And especially in restaurants, chefs use the latest technology to prepare
tasty food and this has changed the lifestyle too. Nowadays people can get food with
whatever calories they want in their daily life
In conclusion, I prefer to prepare tasty food in easy methods using latest machinery.
(Written by Kumar)
Model Answer 5:
Compared with people in the past, we concern far less on the preparation of food today,
thanks to the development of agriculture and scientific technology. A fair amount of
beneficial influence is occurring to us consequently.
The first to be benefited is travellers. It has been much probable for one to carry out the
plan of a trip or expedition to remote areas. As a matter of fact, a diversity types of food
are designed for outdoor trips, for example, compressed biscuit. Without worrying about
starving, a man can push it to the limit wherever he would like to go -- Mount Everest or
the South Pole.
For most common people, it has been realistic to put their energy mainly on other
aspects, work or interest, rather than what to have for meals. Some prefer working all
the time in order to earn as much money as they can. Others develop their interests or
hobbies like sports, music instruments, or photographing. Whatever people choose to
spend time on, they feel their lives are satisfying and fulfilling.
Attitude toward life matures as well. Humans are no longer bothered with the
preparation of food. Our focus now is to improve the standard of life: how to make
things more effective? Thus, numerous significant achievements have taken place
recently in every subject. Sciences and technologies, arts and humanities are swiftly
striding forward, and still accelerating. Therefore, without concerning about food
preparation, the pattern of human evolvement changes fundamentally.
To conclude, the benefits to both individuals and the whole human race is clearly
demonstrated. And I believe that food preparation will account for even less in our life in
the future.
(Written by Jifang Zhang)

Model Answer 6:
Advancement in the technology, such as microwave oven and rice cooker, has provided
efficient options for cooking food. This has reduced the overall time required for
cookery. Thus it is believed that this has enhanced the lifestyle of the human being to a
greater extent. In this essay, we will analyse how these methods allow people to spend
their spare time practising their hobbies and provide healthy food options for the young
people.
To begin with, availability of new methodologies have minimised the cooking period
making it possible for them to utilise this span for enjoying the skills of their interest. For
instance, using rice cooker usually takes half the time when compared to the
conventional gas cooking. This example clearly shows that the individuals who prefer
this cooker will manage to get some extra idle time for them. Thus, it is obvious that this
moment can be efficiently used for improving their expertise as well as for the relaxing
purpose.
In addition, students can cook food for themselves with the aid of these advance
innovations and hence, they can feed on the healthy home-made food. A good
illustration for this is the utilisation of microwave by the bachelors who have to stay
away from the family for study or work purpose. Usage of this microwave enables them
to cook food quickly since very few steps are involved in microwave cooking and
thereby, they do not need to depend on restaurants for food. As a consequence, the
health condition of these young people is maintained since they will intake less amount
of artificial food.
From the above examples, the benefits of easy methodologies for preparation of the
culinary are difficult to debunk. It is thus hoped that more development will take place in
regards to cooking which will ease the life of the masses in the foreseeable future.
(Written by Aqeela)

Model Answer 7:
Unlike earlier times, cooking as a process has become compact and facile today. Now
the question is, has this affected our lifestyle? Or is it unbiased? Gone are those days
when mother used to spend hours in a hot kitchen for cooking nutritious food for her
family members. Fast food being the buzzword for today, all find little or no time to cook
for themselves and family. As a result, processed or easy to cook foods flood the
market these days. However, this has brought some dramatic changes to the quality of
our lifestyles, though with a few health concerns as discussed below.
In this era of globalisation, where work and time dictate your day, seldom does one find
time to cook a full course lunch or dinner. Since both parents work urban world witness
more and more children thriving on fast foods like burger, sandwich etc. It is natural that
parents are not getting enough time to cook more ethnic food for them; instead, they
work more to earn more, thus improving their lifestyle. People find more time to spend
with family than before. An exemplification would be that of a busy office lady late from
work, prepares easy cook meal for dinner and prefers to spend time from the kitchen
with children. The improvement in the system would be a stronger family bonding!
Likewise, a student finds these easy foods a real boon during their hostel days when
both time and skill to cook are scanty.
Travellers are another category who admires easy to prepare meals, as cooking during
a picnic or a business tour would be cumbersome. This also facilitates more family
picnics and outing together. A quick breakfast like an egg sandwich would be the best
buy for a student on that given exam day! So would be it for a working mother on an
office meeting day! So it is a matter of fact, that the new trend in food preparation has
had an impact on our lifestyle. It has helped us to improve our quality of life.
Now turning on the coin, does these fast foods or easy to cook meals pose a health
threat? Many studies show a steep climb in the number of cancerous patients in the
United States in recent years. One main factor considered responsible for this is the
frozen and fast foods. The burgers and sandwiches come with a hand full of issues that
can deprive you health wise. A majority of fast food are prepared in oil with saturated
fats that can cause problems to your body systemic circulation. Consumed on a daily
basis, it can lead you to cardiac problems even.
To conclude I would say that though it comes with a few health concerns, easy to cook
trend has definitely improvised our quality of life. Now much depends on our
conscientious to use fast foods only when it is an absolute necessity- for example on a
busy day at the office!
(Written by Vineeth)

Model Answer 8:
Essay Topic: Nowadays food has become easier to prepare. Has this change
improved the way people live?
Give reasons for your answer using your own ideas and experience.
Model Answer:
Thanks to advancements in terms of cookery and food preservation, many people have
an easy access to foods now. It is an irrefutable fact that kitchen appliances have
become more sophisticated and they would ease the cookery process. In this essay, I
attempt to give some reasons why these considerable changes enhance individual's
lifestyle.
Over the past decades, the prepared food has become a major intake in our diet. It
unbelievably has become popular among people, especially the youth. However, some
have a controversial perception about it. Fast foods would help people to save their time
in cooking. Therefore, people tend to dedicate their time to their occupational
assignments. In fact, it could help employees to have more spare time to acquire
professional skills rather than just merely waste their precious time to cook.
Another crucial aspect of advanced technology to provide a faster way to making foods
is that families have more time for recreational activities. For instance, if parents
allocate a significant amount of their time to upbringing the children, it can make a
valuable impact on the children's personalities. It is invariably thought that children's
need to have a sufficient food is important, but the most substantial matter is that they
must be reassured that their parent' affection is true. Thus, spending the massive
amount of time for bringing up the children would justify this notion.
Finally, I must assert that, despite some debatable arguments against advanced
cookery, it has altered our lifestyle in a good way. In my opinion, critics of prepared food
unfairly exaggerate the drawbacks of this practice. it is important to be neutral about this
and weigh up the benefits and boons of fast food in an unbiased way.
WRITE-2:
IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay:

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task:
Many people believe that women make better parents than men and that is why they
have the greater role in raising children in most societies. Others claim that men are just
as good as women at parenting.
Write an essay expressing your point of view.
Give reasons for your answers and provide relevant example and experience you
might have.
Model Answer 1: (Neutral Argument)
Parental responsibilities and roles are very important for the parents to make their
children prepared for the future. The way a father or mother treats a child affects greatly
for his/her future growth both mentally and physically. If parents fail to take great care of
their children, then those children might go astray and will claim their parents for their
misfortune. Every mother and father love his or her children more than anything in this
world and they expect them to be great persons and well established in future.
Throughout the human history, mothers mainly take care of the children and do most of
the works for the children. On the contrary, men are mainly busy outside the home to
earn the living for the whole family.
This is not to say that men are not of importance in children caring and they do not
know their kids. They are most necessary if children are to appreciate fully the roles of
both sexes. But women have proven themselves superior parents as a result of their
condition, their less aggressive natures and they are generally better to communicate
with kids. Men remain busy at their works and have to stay outside the home most of
the time, but women have lots of spare times to share with their children. From the time
they are little girls, females learn about nurturing. First with dolls and later perhaps with
younger brothers and sisters; girls are given the role of career. Girls see their mothers in
the same roles and so it is natural that they identify this as a female activity. Boys, in
contrast, learn competitive roles far removed from what it means to nurture. While boys
may dream of adventures, girls' conditioning means they tend to see the future in terms
of raising families. Girls also appear to be less aggressive than boys. In adulthood, it is
men, not women, who prove to be the aggressors in crime and in war. Obviously, in
raising children, a more patient, gentle manner is preferable than a more aggressive
one. Although there certainly exists gentlemen and aggressive women, by and large,
females are less likely to resort to violence in attempting to solve problems.

But if we consider that all women are good for their children and men can not raise a kid
properly then perhaps it would be a partial judgment. Is not there any family where the
mother has died or not present and it is the father who takes care of the children as well
as does jobs outside? Certainly, there are lots. In third world countries, fathers are
comparatively more educated than the mothers and the take care of their children's
education greatly. A child needs the affection and caring of both father and mother.

(Approximately 597 words)

Idea Generation for this IELTS Essay:

Essay Type: Opinion Essay.
Main question of this IELTS Essay:
A. Do women make better parents than men or men are just as good as women at
parenting?
Discussion Points: Who can be the better parent? Men or Women?
Women are better than men at parenting:
 Mothers have a closer sensational relationship to their offspring than fathers because
of a better bonding between them and their children.
 Women usually spend more time with their children than men because, in many
countries, they are usually less engaged in working.
 Genetically women can be socially active and communicate better with their
surrounding than the men can.
 As a role of mother, mothers can transfer their experience to their daughters to
become perfect mothers in the future.
 A child spends most of the times, it's childhood with the mother and thus mothers
have a better understanding of their offspring.
 Genetically mothers have better quality in taking care of their children.
Men are better than women at parenting:
 Men have been more responsible to their family financially, so they can transfer their
experience to their children far better than the women can.
 Males’ hormones help better them to be more flexible to difficult situations happening
in their real life, and they can transfer their experience to their boys.
 Fathers are usually more serious in punishing of their children than mothers, so they
can control better their children to avoid crime.
 In many societies, fathers have better educational qualifications and diverse
experience. That’s why they can better prepare their children for the future.
 A father makes future of the child financially secure.
 Men's contribution to a child's development is found to be more effective when it
comes to imbibing discipline.
Men and women have equal role to raise their children:
 A kid needs the affection and caring of both father and mother.
 While mothers take care of their children, fathers work outside to bring the money
home.
 They both have qualities that should be learned by their kids.
 In many families, both parents work outside and that's why the responsibilities of
upbringing children should be equally shared.
[The above points should be helpful to aid you generating your own ideas and then
turning them into a nicely written IELTS Essay. Add any point you think we have missed
in the comment section.]

Sample Answer 2: (Women make better parents)
Mother and father both play a crucial role in the upbringing of children. Some people
assert that women triumph over men to make better parents. In contrary to this, others
claim that men are as good as women in parenting. This is very perplexing for anyone
to choose one. According to me, women make better parents.
In support of my point of view, a mother is one of the first persons who gets attached to
the child from the birth. A child spends most of his time, his childhood with the mother.
So a child is more influenced by the mother. Secondly, a mother is the only person who
takes all sorts of care of the child, like- feeding, bathing etc. Thus, mother occupies
most of the child's time. This makes a strong bond between them. When a child
becomes a little older and starts to go school, a mother takes care of that child's study,
homework, assignment, projects etc. By this, a mother plays a crucial role in a child's
education. In addition, a child learns moral values which are main ingredients to
become good human from the mother.
In our society, usually we find that women spend most of the time at home and men are
only breadwinners. In this type of situation, the person who can spend a chunk of the
time for the nourishment of a child is a woman. Thus, women can keep her eyes on
every small activity of children. Apart from that, owing to closer relationship children's
shares it's emotions and problems with the mother first. Thus, mother knows her child
better than anyone.
On the flip side, to maintain the status of men, they argue that men are as good as
women. In spite of spending less time with the child a man earn for his child. A father
makes future of the child financially secure. As financial security is as important as
building child's personality.
To conclude, both women and men are equally important. But in our society women are
superior to men in better parenting as they rear child very well.

(Written by Dhruvita Bhatt )

Model Answer 3: (Both men and women have an equal role)
In order to be a great human being in future, a child should be raised with great moral
standards at home. The topic whether women or men get a major role in raising the
children is a huge debate nowadays. I think both of the parents share equal credit in
raising kids. Let’s ponder on the advantages on both sides.
Primarily, women are often treated as great caretakers and also the one for great future
of the kids. Children spend a major chunk of their time with their mums. So, women get
to teach kids on how to be a better person in the society and also on how to be a great
human being. She provides nutritious foods to the children which help them to become
healthy. Children learn about how to take care of others from their mums because
mothers always take good care of their children. This instils a great sense of
responsibility in the children.

Secondarily, men (father) are termed as their ideal person for children. Men always
struggle so much in order to win bread for the family. This struggle teaches kids to study
better with a dream to help the family financially in future. Fathers are often a source of
inspiration for children on how to be a strong and better person in life. This helps them
to grow as better and responsible citizens in future.
After looking at advantages from both sides of the argument, I conclude that both men
and women share equal proportion in raising the children. Even if the proportion is not
balanced, there will be a huge impact on the children. So both father and mothers hold
a major role in the family.

(Written by Abhi Keerthan )

Sample Answer 4: (Both men and women have an equal role)
Parenting is an extremely important factor for the proper upbringing of a child. While
some people are of the opinion that women make better parents, others think that men
can also be effective in parenting. I believe that there cannot be conclusions drawn in a
generic sense relating to the gender – Men or Women. What matters most is the one
who has the qualities of being a good parent; this can be either a male or female.

Women by virtue of having more patience, tend to handle children better during their
infancy when patience is an important factor. Ensuring a balanced and nutritious diet for
a child is again done better by women. For example, women are in a better position to
understand what a child needs to take in the lunchbox for the school. Further, studies
have indicated that imbibing the morals, values and ethics into a child during their
growing up years is done better by mothers.

Men's contribution to a child's development is found to be more effective when it comes
to imbibing discipline. This becomes important as the child's time management
becomes a key to his overall behavioural traits and personality. For example, ensuring
the child wakes up in time, spends the right amount of time on studies, indoor and
outdoor games can be better enforced by a father. Studies also indicate that children
who get addicted to one particular activity, for example, say computer games, tend to
grow up as loners and whose ability to interact socially becomes limited. Men tend to
have better ability to control these activities in growing children.

To conclude, it will be incorrect to draw a general inference that women make better
parents than men. No two individuals are the same and everyone possesses their
unique strengths. If that strength coincides with the quality required for effective
parenting, they could make good parents regardless of whether they are men or
women.

(Written by Rajesh )

Model Answer 5: (Women make better parents than men)
Raising children is definitely a very challenging task for the parents. Children need great
care and support as well as enough time to be devoted to them daily to educate them
with good manners. In most of the societies, this is the female role. In other societies,
however, it may be the father who has taken over this task or both parents contribute
equally.
In the majority of the societies since men do the outdoor tasks and are employed, the
women spend most of their time at home and part of their task is raising the children.
Being available all the time is necessary for parenting. A father who is working outside
all day is probably not very suitable for this.
On top of this, women tend to be more affectionate and caring by nature than men. A
parent needs to be kind, passionate and patient especially during early childhood,
periods of sickness and so on.
On the other hand, children feel more comfortable and close to their mothers. Often,
children go to their mother when there is any problem arising or for help. This is most
probably because the very first person that an infant sees is the mother. All the
breastfeeding and cuddling leads to the development of affection and love between the
mother and the infant, and this is seen to persist all the way to adulthood. Hence,
children prefer their mother to be parenting them.
In conclusion, I believe that women make better parents than men, because of their
inherent nature and the love and affection they have for children.

(Written by Narges Mahmoudi )

Sample Answer 6: (Both men and women have an equal role)
Many people believe women make better parents than men since the dawn of the time.
Throughout the history, women have a great role in raising children in many societies
and some other people claim men make good parents than women. The issue whether
or not women make better parents than men is always a debatable issue. Strong
arguments are there from both the sides and let us discuss in a detailed way.
Firstly, children are always attached to the mother and feel free to reach out for
anything. An instance illustrating this in action is almost all of my friends are attached to
my mother rather than my father. It is obvious from this that mother has a greater role in
children brought up. In addition to this, Mother is a good role model for their children
and children always try to follow them and naturally a mother can become a better
parent than the father. For example, every child shares their happiness or sorrow to the
mother first. This makes clear women make better parents than men.
There is always another side of the coin. Currently, both men and women are working in
all families and children are attached equally. For example, kids of my friends are
attached equally to both father and mother. This clearly shows that men also make
better parents. In addition to that, men started sharing the responsibility of children and
children also slowly reaching to father also. So it has proven than men also better
parents than women.
Thus it is recommended that men or women both can make good parents and take
responsibility of their children. It is better to share the responsibilities as much as
sharing love.

(Written by Jacob Kumar)

Sample Answer 7: (Both men and women have equal role)
When it comes to parenthood, females always had a predominating role to their male
counterparts. Some opine that both rub their shoulders as parents. This has been a
topic, wrangling over many years. In my opinion, equality being the buzzword of the
day, both parents play a vital role in raising their child irrespective of genders.
From the time of antiquity, both females and males were parted on their parenthood
skills. The custom showcased women sitting back at home looking after children, while
men were responsible for earnings. The people at that time believed that females were
better in raising children than males. The male domineering society applauded and
encouraged such irrational thinking. But now, people are coming out of such yokes of
irrational thinking and henceforth a notable change in situation is being witnessed.
In the present day, where equality rules, there is less emphasis on gender differences in
parenthood responsibilities. Considering a mediocre family, where both parents work,
both share all household duties, there does not even arise a question of not sharing
parenthood. An ideal exemplification would be my own case, where my wife and myself
share responsibilities when it comes to raising our daughter. We switch duties according
to our office schedules and no difference on gender exists ever. This would be the case
of mass, where nuclear family prevails, with no room for gender inequality.
To conclude, I would like to mention that parenthood is not weighed on one’s gender
rather it is measured on one's dedication and care. So no matter what gender you
belong to, you should be assiduous and provide the best possible environment for your
children to blossom. It becomes ideal when both parents compete out of caring in
upbringing their child.

WRITE-3:
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Present a written argument to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of the following topic:
World history suggests that violence and conflict were more
evident under male leadership than under female leadership.
So, for peace to prevail, female leadership can be considered
as a better option than male leadership.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
You should write at least 250 words.
Model Answer 1:
(Disagreement: Denied the fact that violence and conflict were less under female
leadership)
The human history has been violence and conflict-stricken since the beginning of the
human existence. If we look back in history or to the world around us, we see wars,
conflict, power struggles and revolutions, peace making kings, prudent emperors and
ruthless rulers. History also reveals that society has always been predominantly male
dominated, with leaders and rulers mainly being men. It is, hence, easy to blame the
ruler and put the responsibility of atrocities on the shoulders of men. But a deeper
perspective always reveals to historians that conflict is a generic tendency of humans.
So peace being disturbed is not the liability of men only, but humans in general, and a
power shift, from men to women, is destined to be futile in prevailing peace.
Most of the women who are known to be great till date, e.g. Queen Isabella of Spain,
Queen Mary, a.k.a. Bloody Mary, Victoria, and Elizabeth of Britain, all have ruled over a
vast spectrum of power. And they often have done so ruthlessly, achieving goals with
an iron hand. They have waged wars that are barely comparable to only a few of those
devised by men. These women are not anomalies of history, but examples from
numerous others, who went beyond the boundaries of gender in the path of prevailing in
power while expanding peace whenever they deemed it to be expandable.
The two greatest wars of modern history, World Wars I & II, have taught us that wars
are impersonal. Race, religion, nationality, sex are only pretences to the universally
human lust for power. It is true that during both the global conflicts men were in the
rulers’ thrones. But it will be foolish to say that Margaret Thatcher, the famed Iron Lady
who spared no road against a minnow enemy in the war of Falkland, would be more
peacefully diplomatic than how the greats Winston Churchill and Franklyn D. Roosevelt
had been tackling the Axis of Hitler.
The gender issue is only a determinant in the battle of the sexes, not the battles among
nations and peoples. It is therefore, impertinent, if not irrational, to conclude that world
conflicts result from the rule of a particular gender and the finer sex would do a better
job at prevailing peace if selectively put at the helm of human nations.
N.B: You should be able to pick up different points from this essay and organise your
answer in your own style. This model answer has been prepared by the site developer.
However, please note that this is just one example out of many possible answers.)

Alternative Answer 2:
(In favour of the argument that violence and conflict were less under female
leadership)
Though some people argue that war and conflicts among nations and within a territory
are impersonal regardless of men and women leaders, the history suggests that world
saw less violence, war and conflicts under female leaders. Considering this in in mind I
suggest the idea that female leadership can be considered for a better world.
The major World Wars, conflicts among nations, civil wars mostly caused by the male
ego, assassinations and conflicts of interests among men. Very few female leaders
contributed making decisions to have war with other nations in their period of ruling a
country. Sometimes people often mention the Trojan War and convict a female as the
main reason for this war. But the fact is, it is not even a historically approved war and its
root lies more in mythology than in evidence. And even if it was true, female leaders
were not even remotely involved deciding to start the war. Though the number of male
rulers throughout the history is much more compared to the number of female leaders
and very few major wars could be related to the decision or action taken by women.
Women are naturally mild-hearted and avoid conflicts and wars by all means. They are
more caring and less violent by their prototypes and that makes them better leaders in
terms of serving people. The leader who is caring and has the mentality to serve people
would naturally be a good leader and women are better candidates than men in this
regards.
In summary, the idea of female leadership in terms of avoiding wars and serving nations
better is indeed a good idea.

Model Answer 3:
(Neutral Notion )
Certain people think that violence and conflict were more evident under male leadership
than under female leadership since the dawn of the time. Throughout the history, Male
leadership encourages violence and some other sets of people suggest considering
female leadership to prevail peace.
The issue whether or not 'female leadership can be considered as a better option to
prevail peace' is always a debatable issue. There are strong arguments from both the
sides and let us discuss in a detailed way.
Firstly, World history clearly suggests violence were more evident under male
leadership .An instance illustrating this in action is first and second world wars .Male
leadership encouraged violence in those 2 worlds wars and it is proved that violence is
more evident under male leadership .In addition to this, women are against violence by
nature and suffer a lot because of the violence thus the women leadership always try to
prevail peace. For example, some Asian countries tried to restore the peace during
women leadership. It is obvious from this that women leadership can be considered to
bring back the peace
There is always an opposite side of the coin. Certain women leadership proved that
they are ready to encourage violence. To illustrate this, Pakistan started a war during
women leadership and it clearly proves that peace cannot be restored by changing
leadership. In addition to this, Bangladesh also saw a great deal of internal violence
during women leadership only. It is clearly proved that violence can be evident under
women leadership also.
Thus it is recommended, to prevail peace in all circumstances irrespective of women or

men leadership. Peace can prevail in many ways and consider female leadership is only
one of those options.
(by Nirmala Pagolu)

Model Answer 4:
(Neutral Notion )
If we delved through the major historical archives, it would be noticeable that many wars
and conflict occurred under a male leadership. This observation led to some analysts to
favouring a female leadership in order to maintain peace and harmony. This approach
purporting leadership based on gender to attain peace seemed flawed and simplistic.
Instead if would appear that leadership should be chosen based on democracy and the
most qualified leader for the job.
On the one hand, supporters for female leadership cite the numerous wars and conflicts
under male leadership such as Adolf Hitler or Benitto Mussolini. However, it can also
be argued that a significant number of atrocities had likewise occurred under female
leaders such as Queen Elizabeth during the Iron Age. Additionally, those who support
females' leadership may quote their innate nurturing and non-aggressive characteristics
as opposed to men's innate aggressiveness. Similarly, this would seem an inaccurate
statement as observed in the aforementioned argument.
On balance, it would be more sensible to elect a leader based on democracy and

his/her qualifications. Firstly, a nation's citizens should ideally be endowed a right to
vote for a leader out of their own free will. Additionally, the most qualified person for the
leadership may be another useful criterion. This characteristic may range from their
previous experience as leaders, favourable leadership qualities and innate morale.
Secondly, we all have to acknowledge the metamorphosis of gender's role. It may be
that more violence was suffered under male leadership because fewer females were
allowed in that role.
To summarise, it would appear that the approach to claim that peace would prevail
under female leaders as rather simplistic. Ultimately, what would seem more crucial is
for the most qualified person irrespective of gender should be chosen by citizens out of
their own free will
(by Fiona Lai)

Model Answer 5:
Over the time, history has proved that male leadership shows some violence and
conflict, while female leadership spreads peace. I agree that male performs more
toughness than female in many aspects, especially in leadership, although, there are
always some odds that break the rules.
It is well known that men are stronger and tougher than women. Maybe this returns
back to his body's physiological structure, referring to his corporal side, hormones or
even his nature that he was created on the superior shape by God, where each gender
mostly shares many common desires. Although men's violent control, Hitler for
example, but recent research studies revealed that two-thirds of the male's brain are
mentally described and last third refers to the emotional part in his brain, while the
female's brain shows two-thirds of emotions and the other is mental. So, this result
leads us to vote positively for men leadership. In addition, we can see that man can
stand for hard times and attend and violent moments easier than women without losing
control of himself. And this is an important requirement for a good leader.
Unlike male, the female is more sensational and caters for perfect output. They are
better in house leading, as they are used to considering small details. The woman in the
house embodies the meaning of residence where each member gets rest and live
peacefully, they can get all their pains cured in moments. And that is an essential need
that humans seek all the time through their life. But this does not mean that the woman
is unable to succeed in leadership. We can see clearly the obvious example of Queen
Elizabeth, and how could she change the country she judges into a better state, her
people love her and can live happy and safe under control. The truth about most of the
women that they tend to calmness and peace could qualify her to lead complex
organisations and countries even more than men.
Finally, we conclude that whoever male or female is in a leader position, however, all
always search for freedom, happiness and peacefulness, and anyone can be a leader
only if he or she owns leadership skills and humanity.
(by Samar)

Model Answer 6:
History portrays that reign of war and chaos was on the rise under male rulers
compared to their counterparts. Now in reality, does this imply that female leaders are
more favourable candidates for non-violent governance? In my opinion, it would be
irrational to globalise this and crowning of leaders should not on gender biased.
The mighty rulers of the past were predominantly males. History of conflicts and chaos
during their time deceive that they possessed an innate quest to conquer the world. The
great king Alexander and Hitler exemplify this. But the matter of fact is a deeper
interpretation of historical facts reveals that this was the need and situation of that time.
The global scenario at that age persuaded the rulers to war and conquer. Another fact
would be the conflicts were not less in feminine ruler era too; the great ruler of Jhansi
from Indian scripts would serve an example.
However, the nineteenth century has witnessed more organised and determined
leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. They exemplify the unfairness in
relating male rulers to violence on a global perceptive.
In the present day, where public involvement is emphasised while choosing a leader,
the criteria set forward by an educated mass will never be gender biased, instead, they
look forward to more sensible leaders. In spite of being under the feminine leadership,
India did not address to any changes in its war protocols in last few years. Similar is the
situation in another Asian country of Bangladesh.
Though our history , canvas male rulers as a source of carnage in the time of antiquity,
it would be rather dogmatic to conclude that violence and conflicts are gender bias.
Some of the examples mentioned above would serve the evident. I would opine that for
peace to prevail, sensible leaders should be crowned irrespective of their gender
differences.
[ Written by - Vineeth V. ]

Model Answer 7:
The world has experienced many terrors and wars where there are many victims who
suffered by the use of a deadly weapon or a political decision taken by a leader. Some
people believe that those conflicts were mainly caused by male leaders who used their
power and greed to attack other nations. Female leadership, according to many, could
be an alternative option to prevail peace in the world as female leadership in history
suggests less war and conflicts among nations and countrymen. I do not agree with this
notion based on several reasons.
Firstly, wars in the history are not about gender, but about political decisions. In many
countries in this world, war becomes the last option to grasp in case negotiation
diplomacy fails to cover national interest. For example, in WWII, Germany and the US
failed to negotiate their national interest, war as a consequence was eminent. War is not
about gender perspective, but a rational choice that forces leadership to take action.
Furthermore, there is no solid evidence that female leadership would bring peace over
the world. Some people believe that male makes decisions with their logic and female
with their heart, but there is no exact fact to prove this argument while some female
leadership, for example, Margaret Thatcher, known as "Iron Lady" because of her rigid
way of ruling the country. Conflicts and political deaths in many South Asian countries
like India and Bangladesh under female leadership also shows how people have over
generalised that a female could bring better world and peace. Thus, the idea about
female leadership better than male leadership is not justified enough to change status
quo.
To sum up, many people believe that the male leaders are prone to abuse their power
to make war and violence while female ruling could bring world peace. Only a few
woman leaders actually ruled the world compared to the overwhelming numbers of male
rulers in history and that’s how this opinion got biased. Their opinion is not proved and I
believed this current situation is not because of the gender issue, but for political
rational choices.
[ Written by - Alief Rifky ]

Model Answer 8:
(Disagreement: Denied the fact that violence and conflict were less under female
leadership)
The world history is full of conflicts and wars and most of them were led by male
leaders. Considering this, a school of thought suggests that women leadership could be
a great solution to establish the peace in the world while another group of thought
opposes that idea. I strongly believe that it is not the gender of a leader that determines
the peace. In fact, this has nothing to do to bring order in the world but honest and
prudent leaders with required attributes, irrespective of gender, will harness peace.
There are a number of examples in recent history that show that violence actually
increased under female leaders. For example, the wave of unrest in Indian-administered
Kashmir is contributing to a great loss of human life and its being ruled by a female chief
minister Mrs Mufti. Similarly, the latest streak of killings and stabbings of writers and
foreigners in Bangladesh is known to world and Bangladesh’s prime minister is a
female- Sheikh Hasina. There are several shreds of evidence of mass killings of
religious minorities in Burma and the leader of this state is also a female. So history
might suggest that many wars and killings occurred under the male rulers but we cannot
generalise and tag this with male gender only. More than 95% leaders in the world
history were males so wars and conflicts were mostly attributed to them. We cannot
guarantee that if we had more than 95% female leaders instead of male, there would
have no conflict and unrest. Recent evidence under female leadership does not
advocate for that at all.
On the other hand, to stop brutalities, injustice and unrest all around the world and to
infuse peace in the world, we need leaders with strong leadership ability and greater
qualities. Furthermore, leaders should take ownership of all the wrongdoings and
shortfall in the system and take decisions to rectify them. Leaders should understand
that peace will be achieved with giving strength to people by establishing fair socio-
economic balance. Delivering the young generation quality education, healthcare
service, economic security, social facilities are important for the government to build a
peaceful and self-reliant generation.
To conclude, leaders should be charismatic and possess an exemplary personality to

influence the youth and inspire them to go out and dedicate for the well-being of the
society. Interestingly, both male and female leaders should do that and being a female
leader would not provide any competitive advantage to establish the peace. Strong
traits of leadership will ensure peace and justice to prevail. Gender specific leadership
will not guaranty world order.
WRITE-4:
Some people think that they can learn better by themselves
than with a teacher. Others think that it is always better to
have a teacher. Which one do you prefer?
Use specific reasons to develop your essay.
Model Essay 1:

Learning is an ongoing activity which starts from our birth and continues till death. Some
people argue that learning by own experiences is more efficient and long lasting.
However, others state that teachers are the best mentor and their knowledge,
experiences, observations and techniques will enable us to learn quickly and effectively.
I strongly believe that teachers are the best source of knowledge and their role and
efforts are always applaudable and acknowledgeable.
There is no doubt that teachers are the trained professionals, who are equipped with
latest and modern teaching techniques. They know the art of being delivering difficult
concepts in friendly and relaxing ways. As all the students do not have equal
intelligence level. Here, teachers play a vital role as they understand the capacity of
each student.
Teachers have sheer knowledge because of their vast experience and observations.
They can also provide real-time knowledge of the things to their students. Furthermore,
teachers can provide quick solutions to various problems of students. By this, I mean
that student would have effective learning in minimal time span.
However, learning by doing is an approach, which has long lasting and undeniable
benefits. In facts, this is a time-consuming process as you have to do research and
implement by your own but its advantages cannot be ignored.
In conclusion, I would like to say that teachers' role is mandatory in learning. There is no
alternative to their knowledge and experiences. Under their guidance and supervision,
one can learn and perform exceptionally well.
[ Written by – Fahad Sultan ]

Model Answer 2:
People are learning through their entire life. Our first teachers in most cases are our
parents. They teach us to walk, speak, behave ourselves, etc. They with great patience
pass down their knowledge and experience to their children. There is no doubt that we
need our parents to learn essential things. Parents giving their knowledge prepare
children to join the "real world". So, at this point, we need teachers to learn some basic
things.
When children go to a school or college they have there many teachers who help them
study more difficult and complicated things. Personally, I think that young people need
teachers because in most cases they basically do not understand yet the importance of
learning some "uninteresting things" such as logic, literature, grammatical, etc. So,
teachers keep children on track and sometimes make them learn. I think, at
adolescence and young need teachers because they help them develop and improve
themselves in order to succeed in life.
However, I believe that when a person is no longer a child and he has a job and lives an
independent life he can choose how he is going to study. As for me, my choice between
studying by myself or with somebody's help depends on a teacher. If a teacher has very
interesting lectures and gives many examples from different resources I will attend his
or her classes with great pleasure. However, if a teacher has dry and boring lectures
and does not try to make them interesting I will get some books and study this subject
by myself. It saves me time and probably some money if I take books in a library.
So, basically, some teachers can give their students so much in a short period of time
that it is worth to spend one's time attending lectures. At the same time, from my point
of view, other teachers can not give me the knowledge I need at my pace.
Model Essay 3:

Learning is a process that requires a strategic approach to gain the knowledge
completely. Various proven approaches exist to learn different knowledge and skills.
Traditionally, the teaching is done by an experienced teacher who is believed to have
mastered the skill he teaches. However, some people believe that self-learning is a
better approach and thus learn from books without the help of a tutor. However, it is
preferred to have a teacher whenever possible. This can be proven by analysing how
teachers follow a systematic approach, correct our mistakes, and provide valuable
feedback to lead us to successful in learning.
A systematic approach is essential in learning and it requires subject matter expertise to
know the secrets of learning that particular subject. For example, the skills like
swimming and driving require a systematic approach to learn them. Only an
experienced tutor can teach such a skills and self-learning will not help in such
scenarios. Moreover, self-learning may end up in dangerous situations if some learning
steps go wrong. Thus, it is apparent that some skills require teachers to learn
effectively.
Mistakes are common in the learning process. A teacher can help the students by
correcting their mistakes and also providing feedback whenever required. On the other
hand, a self-learner may not know if he or she is making a mistake in the learning
process and may end up learning it wrongly. For instance, a child learning mathematics
without a teacher may end up using a wrong arithmetic formula as there is nobody to
guide. This shows that a teacher's help in correction and suggestion is important to a
successful learning process.
In conclusion, it is apparent that a teacher can help students in learning by following a

systematic learning style, and amending pupil's mistakes, and providing suggestions
and feedback whenever required. Thus, it is a preferred way to learn with tutors.
WRITE-5:
People learn in different ways. Some people learn by doing
things; other people learn by reading about things; others
learn by listening to people talk about things. Which of these
methods of learning is best for you?
Use specific examples to support your choice.
Model Answer:
People learn through their entire lives. Some people prefer to read many books and
gain knowledge from them. Others prefer to learn from their own experience. Also, there
are people who prefer to learn from others by listening to their advice and analysing
their mistakes. For several reasons, which I will mention bellow, I think that each of
these ways to learn new things has many advantages. Personally, I think that the
combination of these ways is the best way to learn and gain more knowledge and
experience.
Undoubtedly, learning by doing things is the best way to learn. First of all, one can gain
his own experience, which is priceless and valuable. Moreover, some things are
impossible to learn without practising. For example, when children learn how to read
they can not perfect in it without everyday practice. Or when a student learn how to type
on a computer. He can not just listen to someone or read books about it and then type
very quickly. Many things in our life require practice and own experience. Personally, I
think that mostly I learn how to do things by doing them not by reading about them.
However, there are some things that are impossible to be learned by doing them. For
example, students learn many things from the books and other different resources like
Internet, magazines, newspapers and even through conversations. Take for example
our history or space exploration. People learn about them from books and TV programs.
We can not get back in time and experience different historical events except that we do
it in our imagination.
In conclusion, I think that the combination of these ways will give the best results.
However, there is no doubt that personal experience is priceless and irreplaceable
because it gives the great opportunity to analyse one's mistakes, make conclusions and
avoid them next time. So, in my case, I try to learn things by doing them if it is possible
and if it is not then I use other ways to learn them.
WRITE-6:
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.
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.

N.B: You should be able to pick up different points from this essay and organise your
answer in your own style.

Model Answer 2:
(Disagreement: Smoking should NOT be banned in office premises and public
places)
Without any double smoking is harmful to smokers and the debate whether it should be
banned in office premises and in public places came in light mostly because it harms
the passive smokers as well. But some consideration should be done before thoroughly
banning it from the office premises and public places. In my opinion, there is no reason
for the advocacy in favour of smoking but totally banning it in office premises and public
places would not be a good solution.
First of all, if a government only bans the smoking in public places and allows the
production, marketing and selling of cigarettes in the country that point out a question if
the government at all wants to ban the cigarettes. Why would not a government restrict
the selling of cigars but would only refrain the smokers from having it? Rather
government should ban this vile product in the whole country so that people no longer
have the option to smoke. A smoker would naturally smoke as s/he gets addicted to the
nicotine of a cigarette. Allowing them to purchase it and then not to smoke it is kind of
ridiculous idea.
Secondly, many offices restrict smoking in office premises and this is also a
controversial idea. Why hire smokers when you have such a strict restriction on
smoking? Rather those offices should update their hiring policy and should not hire
smokers as many educational and religious organisations do. Smoking in no way
acceptable but restricting this only in office premises is in a way allowing the employees
to go outside and harm some other people rather than the office staffs. Instead of this,
the offices can either arrange a separate smoking zone with proper ventilation facility or
allow the smokers to smoke there or should hire non-smokers.
In conclusion, the cigarettes should be restricted in the production and sales level but
not in the way of stealing peoples’ freedom by restricting them in particular places while
letting them easily purchase them. Where is the good will when a government freely
allows the product, distribution and selling of tobacco and collects taxes from the
tobacco companies and at the same time restrict smoking to show that they are doing
well for people?


Model Answer 3:
Use of tobacco products has become popular after the industrial revolution. Cigarettes
are so cheaply available that people do not bother to think about it before lighting one in
every minute. Society is engaged in very long debate, whether smoking should be
banned completely in public places or not. Some argue that it would encroachment to
one's freedom, while others support this idea. I think smokers should be allowed to
smoke only in designated areas away from the public.
According to world health organisation, smoking is biggest cause of oral and lung
cancer. Even second-hand smokers, people who inhale smoke releases by smokers,
are equally prone to the disease. Therefore, looking at this risk, smokers and non-
smokers should be segregated. In countries like the United States of America,
designated smoking areas are built and smoking in public places is banned and fines
are imposed if anyone is found using cigarettes in public place.
While it may be easy to argue that banning smoking is intruding to one's freedom. But
forcing one's smoke to other non-smokers is even a bigger crime. Advocates, who fight
for the ban of smoking, ask that why should an innocent bystander suffer from the
smoke released by smokers? Therefore, it can easily be concluded that banning
smoking is public place is not attached to freedom; it is rather imposing the right of
freedom.

With above points, in conclusion, it can be concluded that with alternative options for
smoking location made available, smoking can be banned at all public location without
creating any controversy.
( Written by Ramanuj )

Model Answer 4:
'Smoking is injurious to health' is a widely known advice, written on all the cigarettes
packets to continuously remind the smoker of the ill-effects of smoking on health.
Considering the health of smokers, governments and organisations are taking steps to
limit people from smoking inside office premises. In my opinion, this is a good move by
the authorities; however, some people argue that such initiatives will curb our freedom.

Although our constitution allows one to do whatever one wants to do but if any of his
action involves impacting the health of others, then such rights need to be limited.
Medical science has proved that Smoking not only impact the well-being of the person
who is actively involved in smoking but also of the person, passively inhaling the smoke.

Despite the impact of smoking on the health of other people, some people think that
prohibiting one from smoking in the place of his choice, governments and organisation
are curbing freedom of the people. This may sound true if thought in terms of the right to
freedom but if one morally considers the bad effect of smoking on the other people who
do not even touch cigarettes, this no more feels apt to exercise such rights. One must
exercise his rights as long as it does not impact others.

To summarise, smoking not only affects the health of active smoker but also degrades
the immunity of passive smoker. Therefore one must not smoke in places with public.
We must exercise our right for only for the benefit of us as a whole. Further, the move
for restricting smoking in public places should not be seen from the perspective of
curbing freedom but must be supported for everybody's good.

( Written by - Riya Nagpal )
Model Answer 5:
It is a fact that a lot of commercial offices have set strict regulations regarding to
smoking within the buildings. And even in some countries, governments have restricted
their residents from smoking in public areas. Some people think that the regulation is a
positive thing, but others feel that it has taken away some of the human's right.

To begin with, it is true that restricting people from smoking in public places is an
unfavourable regulation for smokers. In the perspective of smokers, the regulation has
taken away some of their rights, whereas everyone has the right to do anything that
individual prefer to do, and one of them is to smoke in public areas. They believe that
cigarette would only be harmful to the smoker, and it would not have any negative effect
to others.

On the other hand, it is common that most office buildings are prohibiting their people
from smoking inside the buildings. And many government authorities have been
banning their citizens from smoking in public areas. These strict regulations have been
set based on several reasons. Firstly, it is a fact that smoking causes a serious or fatal
threat to the smokers themselves. There have been cases, where active smokers have
a heart attack or lung cancer due to smoking. Secondly, it is also proven that the smoke
is also dangerous for the passive smokers. It has been reported that some women have
had problems with their pregnancy due to inhaling the smoke.

In conclusion, although it might seem to be unfair for the active smoker, but setting
restriction on smoking in public and commercial areas is something positive. Smoking is
not only threatening for the smokers, but it could also give a negative impact to the
passive smokers as well.

( Written by - Darwin Lesmana )

Model Answer 6:
Smoking is proven to be deleterious not only for the smokers but it also puts the
negative impact on passive smokers’ health. The Government has put the ban on
smoking in the public places, however, many companies are adopting the similar
footsteps and hence banning it in the offices. Apropos to this, I support what many
Governments and the office authorities have done. Though it might seem a violation of
freedom to some extent, the positive aspects of banning free-smoking are far greater
and hence this movement should be welcomed, according to me.
There are numerous reasons why smoking should be restricted in the offices and in
similar places where people meet or work together. To begin with, many non-smokers
work in an office or gather in a train station, so the smoke of cigarette is pernicious and
irritating for them. Besides, if the smoking is allowed inside the office or in public places
like an auditorium, then the passive smokers will suffer from same ailments, as smokers
will. Finally, an office is a hub of many professionals and allowing smokers to smoke
freely would be the violation of non-smokers’ freedom in one hand and unprofessional in
another hand. To continue it, employees spend most of their time in their workplaces
and if smoking is banned there, then willingly and unwillingly many of them will stop
smoking. In a long run, it is going to give them the benefit, as they will understand that it
is not such a hard nut to crack for them to quit smoking. In addition, it will also save the
time which is spent for smoking by the employees; instead, they will devote that time
doing the office work. The same argument is valid for banning the smoking in the public
places as well. Ultimately the banning should be implemented to save the non-smokers,
smokers and the environment.
However, another aspect of this statement also deserves the attention. To start with, as
the people who are in the habit of smoking feels disturbed and interrupted on banning
the smoking in the offices and other public places. They feel that it affects their
performance and thus they have the right to smoke as capable adults. I would like to
opine that, the banning should not be implemented all of a sudden and the smokers
should be given the chance to quit smoking before banning it in offices and in public
places.
In conclusion, not a single positive aspect of smoking is proven so far while there are
hundreds of detrimental effects are already scientifically proven. Thus banning
something in public places which will bring benefits should be cordially welcomed.

WRITE-7:
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
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.
Model Answer 2:
(Viewpoint: Government should be responsible for enforcing strict building
codes)
People or commercial constructors build homes for private dwelling or for commercial
uses and the number is increasing rapidly as the demand for new buildings is
increasing. In all cases of building a new construction safety of dwelling is important. It
is home maker’s or contractors responsibility to build houses complying with standard
engineering requirements and building codes set by the respective governments. I
believe that the government should always be there to strictly enforce building codes,
and in the case of non-compliance authorities should take punitive measures.
Enforcement of the law is government’s responsibility. Since non-compliance can not
only cause hazards to the homeowners, but also to tenants and if in a cooperative or
apartment, many co-owners may suffer.
The building codes are regulatory requirements concerning safety and quality of the
construction, use of space and others. For example, in an earthquake-prone area, the
buildings should not be very high and the design and structure must have higher
earthquake resistance. Big houses and long buildings (i.e. academic departments,
hotels and hostels) require dilatation every 15-20 meters so that in a heavy earthquake,
only part of a building collapses, not the whole. Moreover, the quality of the materials
used in construction and electric wiring, and the gas connection should pass minimum
safety standards. Adequate entry & exit facilities and emergency exist, fire extinguishers
are also very important is establishments like factories, hall rooms, discos, party
centres.
In cases of a wooden house, wood must be coated with fire-resistant paint. In large
apartments, office buildings, hall rooms and lobbies of hotels, fire-barriers made of
rubber and steel are used to prevent the spreading of fire. Similarly, in areas of frequent
hailstorms, skylights must not be used, and if so, must be protected by steel shutters.
Many constructors often tend to ignore the minimum safety requirements to minimise
costs which jeopardise people’s life. Many private homemakers do not know details of
these standards and precautions. It is the responsibility of the government to
disseminate such essential knowledge and monitor the compliance of builders,
developers and makers of houses. However, the builders cannot avoid their
responsibility anyway.
In conclusion, in this modern world, the government is ultimately responsible for its
entire citizen’s safety and good life. It is also the government's responsibility to enforce
strict building code. If the negligence of any government agency jeopardises people’s
life, the government will be held responsible.

Model Answer 3:
(Viewpoint: Both Government & People should be careful and responsible)
People aspire to build their homes to suit their tastes as well as that of their family.
While several houses are constructed on a regular basis, there have been questions on
the safety standards adopted in such constructions, thus endangering not only the lives
of homeowners but also of those in the neighbourhood and the society at large. While
some people opine that the responsibility of ensuring a quality construction lies with the
owners, there are others who believe that the onus lies with the government. This essay
will discuss both points of view.

To begin, houses that are being constructed by those in the lower income groups do
look at the most cost effective option. In the process, they invariably explore cheaper
options that include a compromise on material and construction quality. This ultimately
leads to a house construction that is inferior and might not comply with even the basic
safety standards. For example, there are several instances where even a moderate
amount of rainfall has led to the houses getting washed away. There are also cases
where minor tremors have led to the collapse of the entire building. Further,
compromising on the quality of electrical wiring can lead to short circuit and hence a fire,
that can affect not just the house owner, but can lead to severe loss of lives and
property in the entire neighbourhood.

In my opinion, the solution to the problem lies with having a regulatory body to monitor
the quality of building constructions. The regulatory body should be under the
Government. The safety standards and the minimum specification of materials that can
be used in any house constructions need to be clearly defined. This should include
essential parameters such as foundation strength, structure strength, electrical wiring
specification, water resistant material etc.
Further, at various stages of construction, the owner needs to approach the authority for
approval. Upon such requests, the authority needs to carry random audits before
approval. This would not only put a system in place but also serves as a deterrent to
house owners who intend to compromise on construction quality.

In conclusion, while the quality of house constructions at present pose a grave danger
to the society, there is certainly an opportunity in this challenge, to put forth a system
that would be robust and go a long way in ensuring that building constructions of the
future adhere to the specified standards and are completely safe to both the owners as
well as the society at large.
(by Rajesh)

Model Answer 4:
(Viewpoint: Both Government & People should be careful and responsible)
Home is essential for every living organism. Human build their own houses with highly
innovative and much more expensively. Home is to protect us from bad weather, for
relaxation, for privacy and to fulfil their personal needs.
Nowadays, people are building their own homes with or without consulting proper
technicians and responsible bodies. Maintaining safety standards while building homes
is an issue for which both government and people should be responsible about. For an
example: a person could buy a piece of land in Sri Lanka and whether this land is
suitable to construct a house should be certified by the relevant authority such as
National Building Research Organization. Their experiment only knows whether there is
a stream going underneath of the ground, and the steepness is enough to build a house
or soil properties are better to build big houses. This consultation should be given by the
Government bodies, at the same time people need to seek relevant government
organisation prior to constructing their own buildings. These all need to be done at the
time of planning and not at the time of constructing.
Enforcing people to obey the rules of the building construction is to be announced by

the government. But, when the people do not follow these rules, they should be
punished by the government. But under the same government bodies, there are some
government officials who escape the rules for bribes. This should be strictly and
immediately stopped.
Even though government brought strict codes to construct homes, people who build,
need to follow these rules. This is the responsibility of the people and not the
government. Only a few people consult government organisation for selecting the land,
planning, and constructing the homes. Others do not do this. An example of that can be
cited as getting Divisional Secretariat’s approval prior to the construct of the buildings is
a must and people should maintain that keeping their own safety in mind. There is a
limitation for constructing a house from the edge of the water stream or railway road and
that’s something both parties should maintain. If that person consults relevant
government body only they will inform about the conditions. Without consulting many
have constructed near the water stream in plantation sector of Nuwara Eliya District. But
they all flooded in the year 2013 due to the heavy rain. Many have replaced their
houses and even locations after that.
Therefore, safety measures should be given by the government and at the same time,
this should be followed by the people who build their own homes, due to their own
safety.
(by Niro)
Model Answer 5:
Having a roof to cover yourself is one of the basic human needs and being safe and
secure is the feeling that drives the urge to get a home. So people who are getting a
home built are concerned about the safety though they might not be aware of all the
standards which keep a check on this aspect of building homes. Now the question
arises, is it the people or the government who has the sole responsibility ensuring the
standards being followed. As far as my point of view goes, it's the responsibility of all the
persons by any means related to this activity; be it the authorities approving plans, the
builder or the owner itself. Everyone should act as a checkpoint and should perform his
duty with due diligence.
The government has a very critical role to play here. The whole setup was defined by
the government and they have the responsibility to incorporate the best possible
standards for safety. For this, they can take inspiration from the western countries that
put a high stake on quality being promised and delivered when it comes to safety
standards for building safe homes. And these rules needs need to consistent across
PAN India and there should be scope for customization depending upon the region. For
instance in areas such Bhopal which are prone to earthquakes more than any other
region in India, you can have specific rules defined to ensure stronger base to resist
against any such calamity. And not only its development but spreading awareness and
stringent checks needed to be employed to ensure the standards being followed.
Apart from the government, the onus also lies onto the builder to whom a trust being
placed by the owner of the house to deliver what was promised. Generally, the person
who wants to have his home built wants the same to be the safest and rather keen to
spend extra bucks to ensure the safety of his house. But it is quite obvious that he might
not be having the technical nitty-gritty of the trade. So he entrusts the builder to do the
job for him and it is the builders’ utmost priority to ensure this trust won't be breached.
To summarise, primarily it's the responsibility of the government authorities to ensure

stricter building codes, but every other person involved in this should be held guilty had
the standards not confirmed with. And it is always advisable to the owner as well to
keep himself updated with all the requirement of safety standards and to keep a check
on the builder because is "better to be safe than sorry.
Model Answer 6:
Home – a safe place for living, is a fundamental need of human being and safety is an
important issue that occupies people's mind. Houses are seen as the symbol of stability
and safety in our society. Housing quality and its safety is thus a great concern and it is
often debated whether the government or individuals should be accountable for
ensuring strict building code. I personally believe that both government and people are
responsible for the building safety criteria.
In 2007 with the world economic crisis, there were many commercial frauds in
constructing houses due to the increasing prices of the building materials like cement
and steel. The owners began to build their houses with low quality materials and at the
same time they constructed illegal extra floors to secure big profit. Hence government
must take strict actions against those owners who did not comply with safety standards.
This could be done firstly by destroying illegal floors and delaying supporting the utility
services like electricity and water. Government also have to make inspection authorities
to the factories that manufacture building material to guarantee world standard safety
measurements .On the other hand the constructing companies must oblige with the
legal standards. Otherwise, their activity license should cancelled or they should be
forced to pay a big monetary fine.
At the same time, people must be aware about the building quality before buying or
renting an apartment or building a house. They must investigate the legal documents in
the municipality to ensure the housing legality. Unsafe houses are great threats for us
and people must feel that it would be ultimately them who would become the victim of
accidents in case safety standards are not maintained while constructing any building.
In conclusion government has the greater role of ensuring home safety standards as a
supervisor and they can also encourage the owners of houses and commercial
buildings to commit with legal criteria. Besides individuals who build houses for them or
for tenants should also abide by the safety rules and codes.
WRITE-8:
Every generation of people is different in important ways. How
is your generation different from your parents’ generation?
Use specific reasons and examples to explain your answer.
Model Answer:
Man, through the ages, has undergone many changes from the time he depicted a herd
of mammoths on the walls of his cave to these days when he can use personal
computers to create a new pattern for his carpet, send e-mail to his friend and even
make him a cup of coffee without leaving his chair. There is no doubt that every
generation is different in many ways from the old ones. In the following paragraphs, I
will list some differences, which I believe exist between my generation and my parents'
generation.
First of all, I think that my generation is more familiar with the modern technology than
my parents' generation. For example, my mother learned from me about the Internet. I
was the first person to explain to my parents what the Internet is and how to use it.
Second of all, people of my generation have different interests and different opinions
about many things. For example, my parents and I have different views about the
decision made by the government. My mother thinks that more money should be spent
on books and libraries for the children, and I think that more money should be spent on
computer technologies.
Finally, I think that people of my generation tend to forget many traditions and customs
of the country they were born in. We often forget about the meaning of the holidays our
parents celebrate. I cannot say that it is wrong I just think it is normal when recent
historical events are celebrated with more enthusiasm. However, I believe that all
people should remember their history and pass it down to the next generation because
this knowledge is irreplaceable and priceless for every person.
To sum up, there is no doubt that next generation is always better prepared for the
future than the old one, and this means that our children will also be more experienced
than we do now. And I think it is for the best.
WRITE-9:
Neighbours are the people who live near us. In your opinion,
what are the qualities of a good neighbour?
Use specific details and examples in your answer.
Model Answer:
I think that my neighbour at least must be friendly. In the morning when I meet my
neighbour he or she should greet me and wish me to have a great day. Also, it would be
great if he did not smoke. I do not smoke and I do not like to smell a smoke from
cigarettes in the morning in my bedroom if I leave the windows opened. A few years ago
I lived in a small community. One of my neighbours smoked every morning in front of
my windows while his dog was trampling down a beautiful lawn. It was really a terrible
experience because I did not need my alarm clock to awake anymore. I was awake
exactly in a few seconds after my neighbour began to smoke.
From my point of view, the ideal neighbour must always be ready to offer help. For
instance, If I need to go somewhere he would offer me to babysit my children and
borrow his car. One more thing, I think it would be great if he picked up my mail and
watered my plants while I was on vacation.
Finally, I think that good neighbours are those who become friends. From my opinion it
is sufficient.
However, if talk about my "ideal" neighbour I can add some extra qualities. First of all,
he should allow me to listen to loud music. I think it would be great if he did not call a
police if I decided to turn on my radio fully in the late evening or in the early morning.
Second of all, my "ideal" neighbour should allow me to use his backyard for my party. I
understand that it is almost impossible to find such a good neighbour, but if at least half
of my requirements are satisfied I will appreciate it.
WRITTNG-10:
In some countries, people are no longer allowed to smoke in
many public places and office buildings. Do you think this is a
good rule or a bad rule?
Use specific reasons and details to support your position.
Sample Answer 1: (Agreement - This is a good rule)

There is no scope for any doubt that "Smoking is injurious to health ". Taking this fact
into consideration, many countries have taken actions of strictly prohibiting smoking in
public places. I strongly feel that this is a good move to reduce smoking and keeping the
environment safe, even though many smokers are strongly against this move.
First of all, smoking not only affects the health condition of the smokers but also of the
non-smokers by a process called passive smoking. In fact, it is a scientifically proven
fact that passive smokers get more health hazards compared to the smokers. Various
diseases like asthma, lung cancer, pneumonia, heart and valve ailments are found
common among such individuals. This is why, to improve the public health and to
prevent dangerous diseases, banning smoking in public places and in office buildings is
an effective move.
Secondly, smoking in public places like schools, parks, shopping complexes, beaches,
offices etc. tend to develop a strong desire among young generation to inculcate this
habit. To nurture a healthy young generation, we should support the idea that public
smoking should be banned.
Finally, by discouraging smoking in outdoor areas, the smokers can be gradually forced
to quit their habit or can reduce the number of cigarettes being smoked. Considering
this I feel that banning public smoking is a good rule and all countries should adopt this
policy.
In conclusion, I strongly recommend that all countries should put forward this rule for the
health and wellbeing of their public. Even the smoking zones that are already placed in
some of the public places should also be banned completely.
[ Written by - Tintu]
Model Answer 2: (Agreement - This is a good rule)
The question about whether people should be allowed to smoke in public places is the
one that is open for debate. All people can be divided into two groups- smokers and
non-smokers. Smokers agree that they do not benefit the society by smoking, but think
that they should have some special places in office buildings or public places where
they can smoke. However, others believe that smokers should not be allowed to smoke
in any places except their own apartments. Personally, I completely agree with the last
opinion. For the following reasons, which I will mention bellow, I think that smokers
should not contaminate the air other people breathe.
The first reason for this is that smokers not only damage their own health but actually
cause damage to the health of others. Scientists say that people who do not smoke but
regularly breathe in the smoke of cigarettes, so-called "passive smokers", poison their
health more than smokers themselves. For example, when I was a student I lived with
the roommate who was a chain smoker. First I did not know what to do, I smelled that
smoke everywhere and I could not breathe freely, but in a few weeks, I got used to it.
Now I think that I was a real smoker because of the fact that I regularly breathed in so
much smoke.
Second of all, I think that people should not be allowed to smoke in public places and in
office buildings because this rule will force them to quit. Smokers will have to quit
smoking or at least will do it less often and this benefits all people smokers as well as
not smokers.
Finally, smoking in public places contributes to the growth of the number of smokers
because many people seeing smokers may feel the desire to smoke and join them. The
advertisement of cigarettes is already prohibited by the law and I think it is a good sign
because many people become smokers only because they see other people do it.
In conclusion, I think that this rule will benefit the society of every country and our world
on the whole
.
WRITING-11:
In your country, is there more need for land to be left in its
natural condition or is there more need for land to be
developed for housing and industry?
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
Model Answer 1:
I am from Saint Petersburg, Russia, and I think that the question about whether lands
should be left in their natural condition or should be utilised to be developed for housing
and industry is the one that is open for debate. Personally, I believe that it is a
controversial question because both views have their advantages. However, in this
situation, an intermediate position can be taken. In the following paragraphs, I will give
my reasons to support the answer.
From the one side, saving land in its natural condition brings many benefits. First of all,
many wild animals will thrive in our forests. Unfortunately, nowadays many wild animals
are endangered because they do not have any place to live in and enough food to eat.
Second of all, our children will be able to learn about animals not only from books but
also from observing them in their natural environment. In addition to those benefits, our
air will be cleaner because many forests will clean it from pollution and make it fresher.
From the other side, deforesting our land and building many new constructions can
have a few positive aspects. For example, building new industrial buildings may have a
positive impact on the country's economy. Many new companies will have the
opportunity to produce more goods and as the result of this the country will receive
more money from abroad and this will lead to the improvement of the economy on the
whole.
To sum up all mentioned above, I think that we need to be more careful with the natural
resources we consume and, moreover, we can do something to preserve them. For
example, companies that produce lumber can also resume the resources of wood by
planting new trees there. This way we can preserve our land and save it from
defrosting. I must agree that it is difficult for Russia at this moment not to develop land
for housing and industry because the country needs money and a stronger economy,
but I believe that many new factories can replace the old ones without developing new
land. So, my point is that we must extend the production of new goods but not at the
expense of the wild animals and their land.
Sample Answer 2:
It has become a debatable issue in Indonesia- whether more lands should be converted
into real estate and commercial areas or should the government preserve and maintain
the natural areas. The following essay will discuss both views, but in my opinion, we
could expand new residential areas but it should be accurately measured and properly
executed.
For a number of reasons, the government of Indonesia should conserve some of its'
natural areas. Firstly, these green areas are producing oxygen which is an important
part of the human respiration. As the number of trees and plants are decreasing, it
might have a negative effect on the air quality. Secondly, the existence of the green
areas can prevent some natural disasters such as flood and erosion. One of the
examples would the annual flood disaster in Jakarta, which was caused by the
conversion of Mangrove forests in the suburb of Kapuk into residential areas.
On the other hand, Indonesia has experienced a significant growth in term of its
population. The density level and congestion issue become a major issue for some the
towns and cities in the country. As a consequence, the demand for new housing,
commercial and industrial areas increased rapidly in the past few years. Therefore, it is
understandable that the government is converting some the natural lands into
residential areas.
In conclusion, it is true that the government of Indonesia should preserve some of the
natural areas, but due to the significant growth of the population they should expand
some residential and industrial land as well. In my point of view, I do agree that the
government should expand housing and commercial areas in the future, but they should
execute it in the proper way. It should be expanded proportionately and with cautious
measurement, to ensure that the portion of natural and residential areas have a
balance.
WRITING-12:
Some people trust their first impressions about a person’s
character because they believe these judgments are generally
correct. Other people do not judge a person’s character
quickly because they believe first impressions are often
wrong.
Compare these two attitudes. Which attitude do you agree
with?
Support your choice with specific examples.
Model Answer:
Some people think that first impression about a person is the most correct. However,
other people disagree and believe that first impression is often wrong. From my
everyday experiences and observations, I can stand that the first impression about a
person is very often incorrect. In the following paragraphs, I will list my reasons to
support my answer.

First of all, when people meet for the first time they often do not have time to get to
know each other or even have a conversation. So, sometimes all they remember is how
they looked. Personally, I often myself judge a person by his or her external
appearance. Fortunately, I many times made sure of the incorrectness of my judgments.
For example, when I met my future husband for the first time he made an impression of
frown and not a talkative person and, frankly speaking, I did not like him at all. We did
not have a chance to talk, but his cloth and manners gave me that impression.
However, after we were introduced to each other and had a long talk I changed my
opinion about him. He happened to be a very sensitive and kind person.

Second of all, I believe that the true impression about a person can be made only after
people spent at least a few weeks with each other and were in different situations
including extreme and danger ones. I think that a person shows his or her internal
characteristics when in danger. Moreover, some people, especially celebrities, tend to
hide their weaknesses and not attractive sides in order to please an audience.

In conclusion, I believe that first impression is very often wrong. I must confess that I
unconsciously judge a person by his or her first appearance but I tell myself that this is
subject to change and try to keep my opinion with me.
WRITING-13:
Which would you choose: a high-paying job with long hours
that would give you a little time with family and friends or a
lower-paying job with shorter hours that would give you more
time with family and friends?
Explain your choice, using specific reasons and details.

Model Answer:
If I was asked to make a choice between a high-paying job with long hours and a lower-
paying job with shorter hours I would hesitate to answer. I did not decide for myself yet
what I want in my life more my family or my career. I think that these options are very
different ones and one needs time to make a right decision.
From the one side, a high-paying job with long hours gives one more opportunities to
make a great career and succeed in life. Another important aspect of this is that one can
earn more money for his family. In addition to these practical benefits, a person can get
satisfaction and self-realisation that are very important in one's life. I think that it is a
very great and essential feeling to be a part of the progress, make differences and be
satisfied with the job. However, a high-paying job with long hours brings many
disadvantages too. For example, a person will have less time for his family and friends.
Secondly, the job will be more stressful and bring more responsibilities. A person will
have to sacrifice many things to his job.
From the other side, a low-paying job with shorter hours can bring many benefits. One
can spend more time with his family and have many pleasant and beautiful moments
together. Also, a job will be less stressful and not require to sacrifice one's spare time to
get it done. However, a person most likely will not be able to make a career and make
much money. Moreover, one's salary may be not enough to pay for his children's
education.
To sum up, I think that every person at least one time in his life realize this and make a
decision whether he or she wants a career or great family. And I did not make this
decision yet
WRITING-14:
What do you consider to be the most important room in a
house? Why is this room more important to you than any
other room?
Use specific reasons and relevant examples to support your opinion.
Model Answer:
My husband and I live in an apartment, which includes a bedroom, living room,
bathroom and kitchen. We do not have children yet, so our apartment is pretty small but
it is cheap and cozy. If I would have to choose the most important room in a house I
think it would be living room. In the following paragraphs, I will present my reasons to
support my answer.
First of all, a living room is the place where we take our guests. It is the main and the
biggest room in our apartment and we try to keep it clean and cozy. For example, my
husband vacuums it every other day especially when it is wet outside and our dog
makes dirty sports on the carpet with its paws after a walk. Second of all, I think that
living room is the most important room in our house because we spend most of our time
there watching TV, having our dinner and just talking with each other. Finally, our living
room is a place where we study. Since our apartment is rather small we do not have a
room for studying, so I have my table with the computer on it in our living room. I like to
study there because the room is perfectly light with the large windows and the beautiful
view from them.
My parents have a much bigger house with six rooms, large kitchen and two floors.
However, I think that my mother would agree with me that their living room is the most
important room in the house. When we visit them we always gather there, lay the table,
and have a long talk. My mother makes delicious cakes and aromatic tea. I like those
moments.
To sum up, I think many people will agree with me that living room is the most important
room in a house because it is the room where people spend most of their time at home.
WRITING-15:
It has recently been announced that a new movie theatre may
be built in your neighbourhood.
Do you support or oppose this plan? Why?
Model Answer:
I live in a small community. From my everyday experience and observation, I can say
that the idea of building a new theatre in my neighbourhood has some advantages as
well as disadvantages. In this essay, I will first focus on the reasons why I support this
idea and then move on to analysing why someone in my community might oppose it.
Finally, I will draw a rational conclusion based on the analysis made throughout the
essay and my own belief and observation.
First of all, I like movies and my husband and I sometimes go to the movie theatre to
watch premieres. Unfortunately, it is time-consuming for us. We have to drive about 50
minutes to the nearest movies theatre. So, the idea of having a movie theatre in our
neighbourhood seems very attractive. It would save us an hour just to get there and
another hour to get back home. Another important aspect of it is that in this case, we will
be able to get to the movie theatre by foot. I must confess that we always have parking
troubles in the parking space near the movie theatre.
Second of all, a new movie theatre is a very good place for students who want to earn
some money. My husband and I live near a student community, so I think it would be a
great news for them. In addition to this practical benefit students will be able to watch all
movies free of charge. I suppose it is a great way to save some money.
Finally, there are usually many restaurants and entertaining centres around a movie
theatre and people can have dinner or play game machines there. In contrast, I think
that the building of a new movie theatre will destroy the silence and beauty of out
community. Such entertaining centres are often noisy. Moreover, traffic jams will
probably be the result of it.
In conclusion, I think that if the question was about building a new movie theatre in the
next neighbourhood I would completely agree. I agree due to the advantages if will
offer.
WRITING-16:
Teachers should be paid according to how much their

students learn.
Give specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.
Sample Answer 1:

The education sector in a country is quite important and different policies are taken by
the authority to enhance the quality of education. One such policy suggested by some is
that teachers' payment should be based on the scale of students' learning. This might
sound an alluring idea, but I personally disagree with it.
To begin with, theoretically, the policy of paying a teacher based on how much his
students actually learn is quite a good one. But the practical aspect is quite different as
it is almost impossible to accurately judge the level of students learning curve taught by
a teacher. For instance, some students perform quite brilliantly in a class while others
even fail to grasp the basic concepts. This can be seen even in a single classroom
where the same teachers are teaching those students. Moreover, this policy would
create an outburst and dissatisfaction among the teachers and would actually decline
their motivation. Not to mention, this would actually decline the education and teaching
quality which is not at all desirable.
Another key thing to remember is that teaching profession is already failing to attract
talented individuals as they opt to more attractive salary offered by other professions. If
payment based on students learning curve is considered, it would make it an even less
attractive profession. On contrary to this policy, more training, motivations, monitoring
teaching styles of teachers and then counselling, student feedback on teachers could
be better alternatives.
To conclude, teachers' role, in a country, is very important and no policy that might be
detrimental for their motivation or for the educational setup should be launched.
Alternative ways like training teachers, better study environment, students' feedback
etc. for ensuring quality education and motivating teachers should be in place.
Model Answer 2:
Education is perhaps the most important aspect of a nation's development and teachers
play a crucial role in ensuring the quality education in a school. I have to disagree with
the statement that teachers should be paid according to how much their students learn.
In the following paragraphs, I will give my reasons to support my opinion.
First of all, students in a class are different and they do not have the similar ability to
learn and understand the given lectures. Some students have to spend many hours
studying a subject while others can do that quickly. Second, students have different
goals in attending schools. Some students want to gain more knowledge and
experience that will help them in the future to succeed and make a great career. Others
are forced to go to a school by their parents, so, basically, they do not care about their
grades and studying and this might be true due to the age they attend the schools as
well.
I think that penalising or rewarding teachers depending on how much their students
have learnt is not fair. However, I believe that evaluation of teachers by their students
does make sense. Teachers who get high grades from their students deserve to be
rewarded financially or otherwise. On the contrary, teachers who get low grades must
be sanctioned by the authority and motivated in other ways to do even better. This will
force teachers to constantly improve their knowledge to get a higher salary and
simultaneously will improve the learning process. Regular training for teachers is
another good way to enhance their teaching skills. Students will have the opportunity to
have the best teachers and get more interesting and comprehensive lectures this way.
To draw the conclusion, from my everyday experience and observation, I can say that
the quality of the lectures given by the teachers often does not reflect how much a
student learn or wants to learn. This is why adopting the payment policy based on
student's learning is not a good idea.
WRITING-17:
Choose one of the following transportation vehicles and

explain why you think it has changed people’s lives.
Automobiles, bicycles, airplanes.
Model Answer:
The invention of the automobile is undoubtedly one of the humankind's greatest
inventions. It had a great impact on people's lives. For several reasons that will be
mentioned bellow, I think that the invention of the automobile dramatically changed the
way people lived before.
First of all, automobile allowed people to move faster from one place to another. This in
one's turn dramatically increased people's life pace. The distance was no longer of that
importance. It was a new means of communication. Second of all, nowadays it is rather
difficult to imagine life without a car. People can not do virtually anything without a car.
Just imagine for a moment that one does not have a car. One needs to go an office, get
a haircut, buy some food, watch a movie, meet one's friend, etc. To get all these done
he uses a car to move fast from one place to another.
In addition, people can travel using their own vehicle. It is great because one can travel
independently, without any train schedules. Finally, I think that the invention of the
automobile was inescapable. People could not continue using trains and horses to meet
their life requirements. Moreover, just imagine for a moment how many horses people
would need nowadays. I think we would talk about horse overpopulation as well as
human overpopulation.
Unfortunately, the invention of the automobile has some negative aspects. The most
obvious aspect of this is the road accident. Many people every day suffer from different
injuries. Also, with the invention of the automobile humankind came across with a
problem of air pollution. A huge amount of cars every day throws out many poisonous
matters in the air. I believe that soon we all will be able to exchange our cars for those,
which use sun energy instead of fuel.
WRITING -18:
Schools should ask students to evaluate their teachers.

Do you agree or disagree?
Model Answer:
I think the idea about evaluation teachers by their students is very good. This kind of
evaluation can bring many benefits to teachers, students as well as to school. In the
following paragraphs, I will give my reasons to support my answer.
First of all, teachers have the opportunity to find out from this kind of test how good and
clearly, their students understand the lectures. It will help them to improve and perfect
their knowledge and experience. Also, teachers who get high grades must be rewarded
financially or otherwise. On the other hand, the teachers who receive low grades must
be sanctioned, for example by decreasing their salary. So, this can help to uplift the
level of professionalism among the teachers.
Second of all, students will more often attend lectures because they will be asked to
evaluate their teachers. Students will have the opportunity to choose the best teachers
because if a teacher gets a low grade he or she may be fired and replaced with the
better one.
Finally, the quality of education will increase dramatically. Students will be getting more
interesting and professional lectures. Also, they will constantly attend classes in order to
listen to an amazing lecture and make an evaluation of the current teacher. In addition
to those practical benefits, a school will be better funded by it is sponsors and
appreciated in the community. This, in its turn, will attract more students because it will
be an honour to study in such a school.
To sum up, I think that evaluation of teachers by their students will bring many benefits
and allow students as well as teachers to gain more knowledge and experience.
WRITING-19:
A company is going to give some money either to support the

arts or to protect the environment. Which do you think the
company should choose?
Model Answer:
Human, through the ages, has undergone many changes from the time when he
depicted a herd of mammoths on the walls of the cave to nowadays when the arts are
more complicated. Our attitude towards the environment is changed too. A few
centuries ago people did not care about pollution, erosion, animal extinction, etc.
However, nowadays people, again and again, talk about this and try to make a
difference. I think that money donation for environment protection must take priority over
the support of the arts. Bellow I will give my reasons to support my answer.
The invention of the automobile is undoubtedly one of the humankind's greatest

inventions. However, the automobile brought us many disadvantages as well. The air
nowadays is polluted by millions of cars every day. Every day clouds of exhaust are
rising from the ground contaminating all around. So, I think that money from a company
can be used to make our air fresher and cleaner.
Another important aspect of this is the contamination of water. Water is an essential

resource for all living creatures. Nothing will survive without it. Unfortunately, we spend
fresh water sometimes very carelessly. Also, many factories wash away their used
resources in the nearest river poisoning everything alive there. I think that money
donations would be helpful for cleaning our water resources from oil, garbage and
chemical matters.
Finally, I think that now humankind faced the problem of overpopulation. The population
is dramatically rising. We need more food, shelters, clothes, construction materials and
space. So, many animals are extinguishing. So, I believe that this money could be spent
on conducting a campaign against overpopulation.
To sum up, I think that in order to make our children happy we should be more careful
with the resources that we take from the nature and if it is possible to restore them.
WRITING-20:
Many teachers assign homework to students every day. Do

you think that daily homework is necessary for students?
Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.
Model Answer:
Homework helps students better understand their study materials and class lessons and
regular homework attach students to their academic lessons more deeply. However,
some people believe that homework does not bring any benefits. Personally, I think that
this issue has some advantages and disadvantages. In this essay first I will focus on the
reasons I support this idea about daily homework and then I will move on to analysing
its disadvantages. However, my personal opinion would be in favour of homework as I
believe this is mostly helpful.
From the one side, daily homework brings many benefits. As I already mentioned, it
helps students understand subjects more deeply. Also, young people learn how to
arrange their time to have all things done on time. In addition to those practical benefits
daily homework teaches students how to make their own research if something is not
clear. Curiosity is one of the main reasons that leads a person to a success. Students
learn to make their research, work with different kinds of informational resources such
as Internet, books, magazines, journals and newspapers. I think it is a great experience
and it is very good for a long run.
From the other side, daily homework can bring many disadvantages. For instance, if a
person has no interest in biology, but has a huge interest in music he has to spend his
precious time doing his homework and reading uninteresting books instead of spending
the time practising new melodies. Another important aspect of this that a student can
have no time for his physical activities. So, basically, doing daily homework will not keep
him in a good shape.
To sum up, I think that an intermediate position can be taken. For example, a student
will have to do his daily homework if he is going to specialise in this field in the future.
WRITING-21:
Some people believe that success in life comes from taking
risks or chances. Others believe that success results from
careful planning.
In your opinion, what does success come from?
Model Answer 1:
People have different views on how to achieve success as some believe that we should
take risks for being successful, while others think measured planning is the key to
success. The following essay will discuss both views in details.

On the one hand, it is a fact that taking risks is one of the most important keys to
success. Risk takers are smart and innovative people as they have creative ideas and
planning and they dare to take chances. Should the plan work out, people would start to
recognise and get attracted to their ideas and output, and soon it might become a big
fortune for them. For example, in 2005 Steve Jobs created the Ipad tablet which was a
newly developed product at that time. Although there was a risk of failure, he took the
risk of launching the product to the world and in the end, the tablet became a
sensational device all over the world.

On the other hand, some people think the only way to success is through careful and
precise planning. They believe that in order to take new steps in life or to make a new
business product, people should have a good feasibility study and proper planning. By
having a good measurable planning, they would already anticipate and mitigate the risk
should there be any failure in the plan.

In my opinion, I believe in the combination of both ideas as people must have plans and
dreams in their life and the way to achieve that dream is through making action plans
and take the risk.
[By - Darwin Lesmana]

Model Answer2:
Some people think that taking risks and chances will lead them to success. From my
everyday experience and observation, I believe that success results from careful
planning. I base my position on the following points.
First of all, I believe that careful planning helps a person to analyse his goal more
deeply and make realistic goals. He knows exactly what he wants. Taking chances,
from the other hand, does not give the opportunity to clearly understand a goal. A
person just wants to do something to move forward and he takes risks when there is no
need of it. A fixed plan helps a person to achieve it and make the person more
determined and object oriented than those who don’t have a fixed aim.
Second, careful planning teaches people to arrange their time more carefully in order to
reach their goals. They become more patient and calm. They plan every step. This
allows people to find an easier way to reach their goals and move forward faster. From
the other hand, people who prefer to take risks without planning may spend more time
without any improvements waiting for a chance to take. Take sportsmen for example.
They exercise a lot before their performance to be in shape, do all their best and
improve their previous results.
Finally, careful planning teaches them not to give up, try to find other ways to reach their
goals in the case of failure. To sum up, personally, I think that all people who succeeded
in life would agree with me that their success came with the hard work and careful
planning.
WRITING-22:
Should governments spend more money on improving roads
and highways, or should governments spend more money on
improving public transportation (buses, trains, subways)?
Why?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own
knowledge or experience.
Model Answer 1:
People have argued about how the government should utilise their budgets on
transportation areas. Some people think that the government should spend more money
on developing streets and highways, while others believe that improving public
transportations is the most important one. The following essay will discuss in details
about it, but I do believe that both aspects are important and should be proportionately
improved.
On the one hand, a group of people think that the government should focus on
improving their street, road and highway facilities. They believe that public accesses are
vital for the economics development of the respective country. Without the existence of
qualified roads and highways, it will be difficult for industries to grow, as there will be
some obstacles for the supply of raw materials and deliveries of goods. Consequently, it
will impact on the efficiency of many companies and also to the government's income
tax.
On the other hand, other people think governments should spend more budgets on
improving and maintaining public transportation such as buses, trains, aeroplanes and
ferries. They believe that if the government could improve the quality of these mass
transportation facilities, it will reduce traffic and air pollution problems. As public
transportations become more convenient and safe, more people will use them, and it
will gradually reduce the number of private vehicle users. As a consequent, it will reduce
traffic congestion and reduce air pollution as well.
In conclusion, I personally believe that the government's spending on public accesses

and transportations are both essentials. And it becomes the government's task to
allocate those budgets proportionately for both areas since we could not focus on one
area and abandoned the other. It would be useless for a country to have good public
transportations, without the support of good roads and highways.
(Written by - Darwin )
Model Answer 2:
Many people believe that governments should spend more money on improving roads
and highways. However , other people think that more money should be spent on
improving public transportation. Personally, I think that both of these opinions have their
advantages and disadvantages.
The first reason for improving public transportation is overpopulation. The number of
cars is rising dramatically. As a result of this fact, the contemplation of air is increasing
that leads to irreversible aftereffects such as the presence of acid rains and different
kinds of human diseases. So, the improving of public transportation will reduce
pollution.
The second reason for this is the possibility to decrease the amount of traffic jams that
also have a huge influence on air pollution. Moreover, it will save time and people's
money. One does not have to pay for gas for his car, car insurance, repair, oil change
and etc.
The third reason for this is a sharp decrease in the level of car accidents. People will
feel more secure in this case. Road accidents have become a violent issue and people
feel that the Government should do something to reduce the accidents happening on
the roads daily.
However, despite all these advantages this decision has a few disadvantages. First of
all, public transportation means the presence of schedule and working hours. So, one
has to wait for a bus or for a train in a subway or call for a taxi in order to get
somewhere. Second of all, it is a big chance that one has to spend some time getting to
the nearest bus stop or subway entrance.
As for roads and highways, I think it is a very important and topical issue. A personal car
in this modern world is an essential vehicle. It gives one freedom and independence.
Improving roads and highways governments will decrease the number of car accidents
and traffic jams. I believe that in several years air pollution can be dramatically reduced
by using sun energy to refuel our cars.
Finally, I think that governments should spend money on improving public transportation
as well as on roads and highways because it will benefit all people.
WRITING-23:
Groups or organizations are an important part of some

people’s lives. Why are groups or organizations important to
people?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own
knowledge or experience.
Model Answer 1:
Nowadays, it can be observed that a number groups or organisations are proliferating in
society. These are mainly classified into public and private groups. I will through light on
the importance of these groups in the following paragraphs.
Public groups or associations engage in solving problems in society or in a community.

Let us take the case of Lions club of our community, it is a public group which takes
care of about general issues related to water supply, roads and security of our locality.
The members of this group are senior citizens, retired people from work and they are
volunteers. Last year this club had done an excellent job in protecting our locality from
chemical pollution by blocking the establishment of chemical industry near to our
residential area. This club collected votes from the people against the company
establishment and addressed the government to abolish the permission. Such groups
are important for society improvement. Next, there are private groups which are formed
only for member's benefits.
Private groups belong to a sector or domain. To illustrate such as, I am a member of

TIBCO technology group, this is formed by people who work on TIBCO software. There
400 members in this group from various organisations, we share knowledge related to
our technology, job openings in our technology and we provide job reference to group
members. This kind of private clubs helps the members to grow officially.
In summary, people are realising the importance of associations and we can expect a
myriad of them in future.
( Written by - Ronith Pati )
Model Essay 2:
Man, through the ages, has undergone many changes from the time when he lived in
the caves to nowadays when he lives in a comfortable apartment. But one thing that
remains the same is that people always lived in groups and organisations such as
families, the smallest group, and tribes, the bigger group. I think that the reason why
people live in groups is because we need communication and what is more important
we need support to survive. So, from old times to nowadays people merged in groups
because it made them stronger and helped to overcome many obstacles and difficulties.
In the following paragraphs, I will give my reasons and examples to support my answer.
First of all, people need to communicate with each other. We need to share out ideas
and thoughts with each other. I think it is very important to know that someone thinks
the same way one does and supports one. In addition, communication is one of the
features of reasonable animals. All animals that can communicate with each other live
in herds and support each other when one of them is in need.
The second reason, why I think groups and organisation are important to people is
because they make us stronger. For example, football team plays better than one
player. Another example is the ancient hunters. At old times people gathered in order to
get food and survive in severe conditions. It was impossible for one man to kill a big
animal, but when people gathered in groups their chances increased. Scientists say that
people survived because they lived together and supported each other.
For the reasons, which I mentioned above, I believe groups and organisations play an
essential role in our life. Moreover, people's evolution would not be possible without
them.
WRITING-24:
Some people think that governments should spend as much
money as possible on developing or buying computer
technology. Other people disagree and think that this money
should be spent on more basic needs.
Which one of these opinions do you agree with?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples to support your
answer.
Model Answer:
Man, through the ages has undergone many changes from the time when he depicted a
herd of mammoths on the walls of a cave to nowadays when he can chat with anyone
across the sea by use of modern means of communication. Some people think that in
today's world government should spend more money on computers. However, others
think that it is inappropriate and the government should spend more money on food and
shelters for poor people, medicine, education, etc. These two options are very different
and controversial. But I think that developing computer technology brings people more
advantages than they think it does.
First of all, humankind nowadays more and more depends on computers. We often do
not suspect the presence of computers around us. For example, when we withdraw
money from cash machines, get some gasoline on the gas station and pay with our
credit cards in the stores. So, nowadays computer technology plays an essential role in
our everyday life. Second, computer technology brings more job opportunities. For a
country, the computer technology means power, knowledge and constant development.
In addition to those practical benefits, the development of computer technology brings a
lot of money to the country.
From the other side, the government should not forget about poor people, who can not
afford computers but need food and shelters. However, I think that computers help
people gain more knowledge and experience and find a job to provide food and home
for his family. So, basically, computers give people the opportunity to reach their goals
and be innovative.
To sum up, I think that computer technology gives people many benefits including the
opportunity to improve one's knowledge and be more self-confident, persistent and
experienced in this world.
WRITING-25:
Why do you think some people are attracted to dangerous

sports or other dangerous activities?
You should give reasons for your answer using your own ideas and experience.
Model Answer:
Nowadays many people attracted to dangerous sports and other dangerous activities.
From my everyday experience and observation, I think it is a result of dramatic changes
in people's life.
Just imagine at old times men had to hunt for food, fight, face many challenges and
obstacles. Now our days are quite ordinary with a cup of coffee, doughnuts, computers,
the desk table and TV. Basically, we do not have to struggle every day for our life and
we have nutritious meals without any efforts. So, all we have to do is to contemplate our
life. However, I must confess it can be boring. All improvements created for the past
centuries made our life easier. Nowadays people look for adventure. They want to face
a challenge, prove themselves something, conquer the world, etc.
Personally, I think that every person sees different goals in doing dangerous activities.
Some people want to add some stress and tension to their lives. From the other side,
other people want to eliminate stress and tension gained from their everyday lives. They
can forget about all troubles and leave them behind. I believe that dangerous activities
give one freedom, happiness, feeling of independence and tone. People who take part
in the games like formula one or try to visit the peak of the Mount Everest don’t do it for
only fame or money but for the passion. As an example, Mother Merry Courie even after
knowing the dangerous effects of radiation worked with it.
To sum up, I think that dangerous sports and activities are irreplaceable in our life.
Without them out life would be miserable and boring.
WRITING-26:
Some universities require students to take classes in many
subjects. Other universities require students to specialize in
one subject. Which one is better?
Model Answer:
I think the issue about what is better to specialise in many subjects or choose the one is
a controversial one. Each option has its own advantages and disadvantages. Some
people prefer to specialise in one subject and know it very well. However, others prefer
to extend their range of interests and specialise in many subjects but not in detail.
Bellow I will give reasons to support my position.
From the one side, learning something in detail brings many benefits. First of all, people
gain more knowledge and experience in this area. So, after graduation, they are well
prepared for their further career in this field. Second, they do not spend their precious
time on other subjects. This gives them the opportunity to focus on one subject.
From the other side, people who specialise in many subjects have more options to
choose from. For example, if a person does not make a decision about what he is going
to do after graduation it is a very good chance for him to try many fields of study and
make the right decision. In addition to this practical benefit, a person has the opportunity
to extend his range of interests, his communication skills and have better conceptions of
things around. Also, a person has a better chance to choose what he really likes to do
and make self-realization.
To sum up, I think that every person should have a chance to choose. Does he want to
specialise in one subject or he wants to take classes in many subjects?
WRITING-27:
Face-to-face communication is better than other types of
communications, such as letters, email, or telephone calls.
Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.
Model Answer 1:
Humankind, through the ages, has undergone many changes from the time when
people communicated only face-to-face to nowadays when a person has in use many
types of communication means. Some people still prefer to use face-to-face
communication despite many other sometimes more convenient ones such as phone,
mail, e-mail and fax. I think to continue this essay it is essential to clarify what kind of
conversation we are talking about.
For example, if people are negotiating it is very important to have a face-to-face

communication. It is very important to see during a negotiation how one's opponent is
moving, is he nervous or relaxed, what he is doing, etc. Scientists say that the body
language and facial gestures can say many things about a person, his strong and weak
sides, his traits, manners and even habits. To know what kind of man one is dealing
with is an essential aspect in negotiation. Many managers prefer to have face-to-face
conversations with the future employees. So, in this case, they see how a person
behaves.
From the other side, if I need to notify my bank that I am going to close an account I do
not want to spend my time driving there, waiting for my turn and talking with a
representative. It is easier for me just to call or e-mail them. It saves my time and my
bank's too.
To summarise, from my opinion all important issues better be discussed in face-to-face

conversation. It will eliminate many further misunderstandings and bring only benefits to
both sides.
( Approximately 257 words)

that this is just one example out of many possible answers.You should be able to pick
up the main points from this essay and organise in your own style)
Model Answer 2:
Currently, the social networks are becoming more popular among young generation.
Therefore, we can say beyond any doubt that modern society prefers to send emails or
handwritten letters rather than socialising in reality. In my opinion, the face-to-face
communication is more effective to build a personal relationship and to conduct
professional arrangement but other ways of communication like email and chat are
becoming more popular nowadays as they are easy and more convenient.
To begin with, by directly facing with other people individual could enhance his
conversational speech by learning new words and improving pronunciation. For
instance, communicating with a well-educated person could enrich your vocabulary and
range of vision. Secondly, there is no doubt that people sometimes want to see the real
emotions of a man while he or she writing a letter or an email. Face-to-face
communication allows individuals show that feelings entirely put people`s faith in saying
the truth. Moreover, connecting with people in real life helps easily make new friends at
a later stage.
It should also be stated that socialising by the Internet also has its benefits. Firstly,
people could comfortably confess in some things that could not tell face-to-face.
Furthermore, with improving technological devices it is easier for people to write an
email or just call due to the fact that it does not take a lot of time to send a message.
Secondly, there are a lot of social networks such as Skype, Facebook and Twitter,
which permit individuals to keep in touch with friends from other countries all over the
world.
To sum up, it is easy to communicate within the Internet. Nevertheless, my point of view
is that directly facing is essential for meeting new friends.
WRITING-28:
Describe a custom from your country that you would like
people from other countries to adopt.
Explain your choice, using specific reasons and examples.
Model Answer:
In our modern and stressful world, we often forget about our customs and traditions.
The modern technologies and easy of digital entertainment have occurred even faster.
However, I think that people should keep their traditions because they help to remember
our forefathers and value the beautiful moments we have in our lives.
In my country, we have a great custom called "Maslenica". It is a holiday, which is

celebrated at the end of the winter. Many people gather on the biggest square of the city
and see of the winter. They say to the winter good-bye and ask the spring to change the
winter. They celebrate the beginning of the life when everything starts to grow.
People on this holiday baked pancakes and treated each other with them. Also, many
people gathered on the square and played different games. For example, the most well-
known game "pulling a rope" subsists in that two teams pull a rope. The winner is the
team would be whatever side has a longer rope. Other people crawl on the icy pole.
People have fun at this holiday even if they just observe those games and do not
participate.
In conclusion, I am sure that "Maslenica" would benefit many countries all over the
world. People have the opportunity to relax, leave their troubles and worries behind and
have fun. Also, this holiday helps people to find out more about each other,
communicate and meet new people. In addition to those practical benefits, "Maslenica"
helps people to slow down their life pace and enjoy the present moments that are
irreplaceable and beautiful.
WRITING-29:
Businesses should do anything they can to make a profit.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your position.
Model Answer 1:
I do not agree with the statement that businesses should do anything they can to make
a profit. I state my opinion on the following points. First of all, every company must have
its moral code. It means that a company should treat its clients properly and respect
their rights.
Of cause a company may lose a part of its profit but the security of its clients must be in
the first place. Otherwise, clients will switch to another company and never be back. For
instance, a few years ago "Jonson & Jonson" produced a new type of painkillers.
Unfortunately, this product was not tested properly. As a result of this, many people died
and received injuries. The president of the company made a crucial decision to call back
all painkillers from all distributors and pay to all injured customers for their treatment. It
cost a lot of money for the company but it saved its image and clients. It was a very
difficult decision, but the president of the company understood that it would cost him
even more in the future because he would not be able to return clients' respect. Losing
customers means for a company losing its profit.
Second of all, in order to succeed in the modern world companies have to compete with
each other. Many companies lose their profit decreasing prices on their products. They
do not aspire for extra profit but for clients' satisfaction. Companies do it because they
want their products sold and their customers satisfied. They offer discounts, free
delivery, free service, free Internet access, good return service, etc. All these are done
to make their old customers happy and attract new clients.
To sum up, I think a company, which the only goal is profit will not succeed nowadays.
Otherwise, companies that respect their clients and want to see them satisfied will make
a fortune.
Model Answer 2:
It is believed that businesses people should use any kinds of ways in generating profit. I
strongly disagree with the statement, as there should be some regulations and policies
that business people should follow and the following essay will discuss it in details about
it.
To begin with, if business people are allowed to do anything they like in generating
profits, then there would be a serious threat to the environment. Many companies and
corporations are building projects based on their commercial senses, without assessing
the impact of them to the surrounding areas. In many cases, there were a lot of energy
companies that had demolished forest areas, which were the home to various kinds of
endangered animals. Should there be no restrictions on these companies, the world will
gradually lose its' biodiversities.
And then, it is obvious that there should be a code of ethics and regulations in doing
business. They are important for protecting customers from any inappropriate acts of
business owners. It has been reported that in order to save production costs and to
increase profit margins, a lot of manufacturing companies have used dangerous
ingredients as a part of their production process. And then, some companies were hiring
labours which were below the standard age and compensated them with minimum
salary to reduce labour costs. These unhealthy practices would be a serious threat to
many societies and communities.
In conclusion, I personally disagree if people could do anything to make their business

profit. Without the existences of business restrictions, law and policies, then it would
generate a devastating problem for mankind, such as deforestation and human
trafficking.
WRITNG-29:
Attending a live performance (for example, a play, concert, or
sporting event) is more enjoyable than watching the same
event on television.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.
Sample Essay 1:
Observing some events in real time in person has very different impact on human
nature than watching recorded or broadcasted version. Liking and disliking vary from
person to person, some people are delighted to attend events in a live show and others
prefer to watch them while sitting in their bedroom. In my opinion, live programs are
more recreational, socialising and provide chances to meet favourite actors or heroes
and even one can get autographs.

Firstly, while attending live events we can enjoy more because of charged audience and
an amusing environment. Audience clap, dance, shouts and narrates slogan to warm
the pleasant environment. At the end of the event, we can meet the distinguished
people and even can take their pictures with you.
Secondly, these recreational shows gather multidimensional joys and happiness with
them. We schedule the programs with our family and friends and go to some place with
food and cameras. Live shows are the source of socialisation, we can meet our friend
and even we can make new friends. The phenomenon of silent learning works, we learn
few new things without effortful intention to learn that valuable quality. We may save our
sweet memories with people around us by taking video shots.
On the other hand, to join real-time shows are expensive, we have to spend a
reasonable amount of money to join it. Moreover, we have to manage time to execute
our attendance. While watching these programs when they are broadcasted it is
inexpensive and one can manage his daily routine by working around.
In conclusion, we should join live programs to make our self more happy and cheerful
but not at the cost of duty and disturbance in daily routine. Before choosing the option of
these programs one should consider that expense of tickets should not disturb the
monthly budget of the family.
[ Written by - Rizwan Chattha ]

Model Answer 2:
The issue whether to attend a live performance or enjoy watching the same event on TV
is a controversial one. However, in my opinion, an intermediate position can be taken. I
base my suggestion on the following points. But before I begin I think I need to clarify
what kind of live performances I like. I mostly attend concerts and prefer to see sports
events on TV.
First of all, watching an event on TV can bring many advantages. One can relax and
settle in his favourite chair, eating a cake or having a drink. One does not have to spend
time driving to the place where an event takes place. Also, he does not spend money on
a ticket. Moreover, sometimes sitting in front of a TV set one is likely to see more
interesting parts of a show more clearly with the help of an operator. Second, the
weather is no longer of that importance. He does not care that it is rainy or chilly
outside.
From the other side, attending a live performance has many advantages too. Firstly,
people can enjoy the songs as they are in a real time. Personally, I like to attend a live
performance because they give much positive energy and many beautiful moments.
Frankly, watching a show at home does not give me that. One can enjoy loud music, the
closeness of his favorite stars and shout the songs he likes.
In summary, I prefer to attend live performances in the case of a concert and show.
However, in contrast, I prefer to watch sports events on television at home.
WRITING-30:
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
With the help of technology, students nowadays can learn more information and learn it
more quickly.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your position.

You should use your own ideas, knowledge and experience and support your
Model Answer 1:
From my everyday experience and observation I can state several factors, which defend
the statement that with the help of technology, students nowadays can learn more
information and learn it more quickly.
First of all, the latest inventions of humankind dramatically improved our life. Nowadays
we can move from one place to another more quickly, we do not spend much time
cooking, we have many different resources of information and means of communication.
So, our life now is more dynamic and changeable. During our day we receive a huge
amount of information and process it. Students at the same time have more resources
to get the information they need. They can go to a library, the nearest bookstore, or
borrow it from a friend or even download it from the Internet. I think It is great. Instead of
waiting for one's turn to get a book in a library, one can print it from a file downloaded
earlier. The great thing about it that one can print only those pages he is interested in
and also make marks on the pages to mark important ideas.
Another important aspect of this is the advantages of using the computer the greatest
invention of the last century. Students do not have to spend their time by writing and re-
writing many papers. It is really time-consuming. They just type information in and may
use many useful features such as "copy", "paste", "delete", "save", etc. Also, sometimes
students do not have to write down lectures because they already have them on their
computers.
The Internet plays an important role in our life now. We can communicate with the
people who are in another part of the planet. We also can get the latest news very
quickly. People can ask for a piece of advice or find different kinds of information on the
Internet. Students can get their degree online, register for classes, communicate with
professors, take tests and even listen to a lecture. I think the great part in it that
students may more effectively arrange their time. They can get their task by e-mail and
stay home to do it. It really saves time and makes studying more fun especially if a
person has to work in order to pay his or her tuition.
To summarise, I think that many last inventions improved students' life and allowed
them to concentrate more on studying.
( Approximately 396 words)

that this is just one example out of many possible answers.You should be able to pick
up the main points from this essay and organise in your own style)

Model Answer 2:
With the advanced development of technology, it is easier for students to get
information as much as they need these days. As a result, they get more knowledge
than the previous generations and learn quicker as well. I personally agree with it and
the following essay will discuss it in details.
Firstly, it is a fact that with the existence of the internet technology, people could get
more information and data than ever before. The online technology offers various kinds
of websites which provide precious and useful information. And students could easily
get that precious and important information by connecting their computer to the internet.
Consequently, students obtain more information than ever before and it has positively
affected their intellectual and intelligence behaviour.
Secondly, the research has showed that with the advanced technology, students are
faster in learning and absorbing lessons that they have studied. The technology
provides various types of tools and platforms which can be used by students in their
study. For example, students could learn new things not only by reading traditional
books these days, as they could search some audios or videos on the internet that
could give a more comprehensive understanding of the lesson that they are studying.
Therefore it is undeniable that students are learning faster these days.
In conclusion, I strongly agree that technology has positively affected the way students
learn these days, as the advanced technology has assisted students in gaining more
information than ever before, and students are learning quicker these days.

Writting Book 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writting Book 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IELTS

THE MORE YOU SPEAK THE MORE YOU CAN WRITE

Write about the following topic:

Idea Generation for this IELTS Essay:

 Having more spare time for other activities, like entertainment.

(Written by Jifang Zhang)

IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay:

Idea Generation for this IELTS Essay:

Women are better than men at parenting:

Men are better than women at parenting:

Men and women have equal role to raise their children:

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Thus it is recommended, to prevail peace in all circumstances irrespective of women or

(by Nirmala Pagolu)

On balance, it would be more sensible to elect a leader based on democracy and

(by Fiona Lai)

[ Written by - Alief Rifky ]

To conclude, leaders should be charismatic and possess an exemplary personality to

Model Essay 1:

[ Written by – Fahad Sultan ]

Model Essay 3:

In conclusion, it is apparent that a teacher can help students in learning by following a

Though pressure groups such as tobacco companies may discourage restrictions on

Enforcing people to obey the rules of the building construction is to be announced by

To summarise, primarily it's the responsibility of the government authorities to ensure

Sample Answer 1: (Agreement - This is a good rule)

You should write at least 250 words.

Teachers should be paid according to how much their

Sample Answer 1:

Choose one of the following transportation vehicles and

Schools should ask students to evaluate their teachers.

A company is going to give some money either to support the

The invention of the automobile is undoubtedly one of the humankind's greatest

Another important aspect of this is the contamination of water. Water is an essential

Many teachers assign homework to students every day. Do

In conclusion, I personally believe that the government's spending on public accesses

Groups or organizations are an important part of some

Public groups or associations engage in solving problems in society or in a community.

Private groups belong to a sector or domain. To illustrate such as, I am a member of

Why do you think some people are attracted to dangerous

For example, if people are negotiating it is very important to have a face-to-face

To summarise, from my opinion all important issues better be discussed in face-to-face

In my country, we have a great custom called "Maslenica". It is a holiday, which is

In conclusion, I personally disagree if people could do anything to make their business

You should write at least 250 words.

You might also like