Some people say that protecting the environment is the government’s responsibility.

Other believe that every individual should be responsible for it. Disscuss both viewes and
give your own opinion.

The opinion that whether national institutions or individuals should be in charge of

environment preservation is a topic of discussion nowadays. From my perspective, the duty
should be shared to both due to their own responsibility and capacity.

Firstly, governments are the main subject who are both responsible and qualified for
preverving the well-being of the nature. As it can be seen, the purpuse of creating a national
system is for solving the most crucial issues in society such as environment problem. By
building a national law system, their job is to address and give actionable solutions for
environmental issues. Futhermore, national authorities are the only ones who financially
capable enough in involving and tackling challenges about environment sufficiently. For
example, in constructing buildings and factories for recycling purpuses, it would be nearly
impossible to complete without the involment of national budgets.

On the other hand, the actions from only governments could not be affective without the
cooperation with individuals. In fact, numerous regulations and laws legislated rely greatly
on citizent’s implement. For example, regulations about restriction of littering in public or
recycling campaigns are taken place mostly in communities and households. If the public get
greatly acknowledged and educated, the process of protecting and improving the quality of
air, water as well as land will be more successful.

In conclusion, although governments are the core of protecting and improving environment
process as a leader, with their own duty and ability, the public also plays an innegligible role
in the whole environment protecting process.

Money should be spent on creating new public buildings such as museums or town hall
rather than renovating the existing ones. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There is an opinion in public that up-to-date public constructions such as museums or city
centres should be built instead of modernising existing ones. From my perspective, although
there are several merits from creating new buildings, maintaining aged constructions could
save goverment’s budget as well as benefits other aspects of society, which should be
considered more.

To begin with, there are several advantages in the appearance of new national constructions
in society. Firstly, modern public buildings tend to attract certain groups of people who are
interested in fresh approachments. By the convenience and the different experience from
lastest designs, the amount of people who tend to visit those buildings might increase. For
example, new city centres are built with cutting-age equipment installed and new western
appearances are likely to appeal more visitors ranging from children to middle-aged people
to shop and visit.
On the other hand, keeping aged buildings under maintain and renovation has more
economic and social advantages. The first reason is the expenditure of modernising a public
antique architecture is considerably lesser than creating a new one, which is benefitial for
government’s budget. Furthermore, with the increadible development in construction
industry, the quality as well as the artistic aspects of buidlings could be quaranteed and it
leads to the satisfaction of the public. Secondly, by maintaining old national constructions
such as museums or theaters, governments could support students in terms of learning
about the past via experiencing antique architecture. For example, it would be efficient for
schoolers to get an in person experience as well as remember their lesson longer if they are
able to visit an aged theater which appeared in their history book.

In conclusion, instead of creating new public constructions, reconstructing long-lasting

building owns more benefits such as lessening financial spending and supporting other
aspects such as education.

___________________________________________________________________________
________

Some companies sponsor sport as a way to advertise themself. Some people think it is
good, while others think there are disadvantages. Discuss both views and give your
opinion.

Some people argue that sponsorship in sport is an effective means of advertisement while
others find it uneffective. In my opinion, although there are some drawbacks for small
businesses, advertising via sponsoring for sport events is an benefitial way to advertise
themself for sizeable interprises.

Firstly, because of the humble range of the potential customers as well as high
advertisement cost, some people consider the strategy of using sport industry as a place to
advertise is problematic. According to them, sport lovers are the main object who could be
exposed to advertisement in sport events or competitions. Therefore, it would be
challenging for commercial companies to expand their market if they rely on this method. In
addition, some business owners take the cost of sponsoring in sport-ralated events into
consideration due to their financial capacity. In deed, to small and medium-sized interprises,
spending a great amount of money in rewarding or providing other material benefits for
sport contests is a dawnting task or even impossible.

On the other hand, it is practical for sizeable and international commercial organizations to
improve their images by investing in sponsoring sport-related events. Firstly, due to their
advantege in finacial aspect, funding for sport meetings or swimming conpetitions is not a
difficulty, especially in order to earn more afterwards. For example, some international
cooperations have spent billion dollars yearly in sponsorship for global sport events such as
Olympic. Furthermore, with the productive support of social media platforms nowadays,
popularising company’s products cross countries is no more a matter. As a result, businesses
could expand their target customer range to people who even have no interest in sport,
which affect massively on their revenue.
In conclusion, while for some parts of business industry, using sponsorship in sport is
unpractical, some other parts are willing to be engaged in and could achieve numorous
benefits from it.

Many manufactured food and drink products contain high level of sugar, which causes
many heathy problems. Sugary products should be made made more expensive to
encourage people to consume less sugar. Do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, high-sugar canned food and beverage have been producing more, which cause
various health issues for people. The opinion that the price of processed food and drink with
high sugar level should be increased is an actionable method because this could drive
customer behavior to healthier products as well as motivate other healthy food industries to
grow.

To begin with, opponent side might argue that getting revenue decreased and potential
customer range narrowed could be the disadvantages of rising sweeten goods’price. As can
be seen, in manufacturing industries, artificial sweet is cheap, which leads to the low price
of their products. Therefore, the majority of customers are not willing to purchase such
high-priced products with the same quality as before. As a result, the number of potential
customers will be lessen due to tight-budget shoppers find it difficult to spend more money
on expensive ready-to-eat sweeten food and drink when they can purchase other types of
affodable food. The final consequense of it is the downward trend in selling and buying
sugary processed products, which might affect the whole market.

On the other hand, the merits of putting the price of those products in a higher level
overweigh its drawbacks due to its profits in a long term. Firstly, customer behavior would
be changed into less or no sugar products which are more valuable to their well-being. For
example, candies and cakes which used to be consumed mainly in almost every household
would be replaced by heathier food and drink such as nuts or fresh juice. Moreover, once
customer behavior changed, other parts of food making industry are able to thrive. Because
people can not exist without eating and drinking, if the less or free sugar products are
suitable for their budget, they would turn into using them. As a result, these industries have
more market to developt, which benefits not only social aspect but also econimic aspect.

In conclusion, although there are some minus points which might negatively influence
sugary product producers, in the long term, pricing up those products bring more values
such as protecting society’s health and creating more market for heathy food products.