Scientists believe that computers will become more intelligent than human beings.

Some people find it is a positive trend while others think it is a negative

development. Discuss both points and give your own opinion.

Opinions are divided on whether the fact that human intelligence will be surpassed by
that of computers is beneficial or harmful. Although highly-intelligent computers can
assist humans in many ways, I am apprehensive about this development.

Admittedly, many people champion the assistance of super advanced computers, and
justifiably so. This is because these machines could greatly improve productivity as they
could eliminate human involvement in the course of production and work tirelessly 24/7.
However, only employers seem to benefit from this, while countless jobs would be
terminated, penalizing the most vulnerable section of the human population. In addition,
although computers with the ability to think critically and logically could help humans
make objectively sound decisions, this would create dependency, which would in turn
have a stultifying effect on human intelligence.

Furthermore, with its intelligence, robots may start to make their own decisions, posing
an existential threat to humankind. For example, robots, with a certain set of beliefs and
moral codes inserted, might decide a group of people or a religion should be eradicated
for the greater good of the human race. From a logical standpoint, humans are, in
essence, destroying the environment for the sake of economic growth, so it is
reasonable to worry that a robot might decide that the best course of action is to wipe
out human existence to protect the environment. These risks are too big for anyone to
take, rendering the brought forth development unwelcome.

In conclusion, robotic engineering and AI technologies can surely enhance people’s

quality of life, but the disadvantages of job losses, increased intellectual dependency on
computers and potential existential threats posed to our own race can negate the
aforementioned benefits. (280 words)
Scientists believe that computers will become more intelligent than human beings.
Some people find it is a positive trend while others think it is a negative
development. Discuss both points and give your own opinion.

Opinions are divided on the impact of the increased intelligence of computers. I believe
that this development can pose significant threats to mankind.

The scenario where computers become smarter than humans is already on the horizon,
and a number of benefits can certainly be predicted. Chief of these is that humans’
overall productivity will increase significantly, liberating a lot of people. For example, AI
caregivers will allow parents to work without having to sacrifice their career for childcare
and chores. Similarly, old people can be taken care of with relatively low costs if robots
are intelligent enough to cater for those people’s needs. Most importantly, dangerous
jobs like mining, or seafaring will require little to no human involvement. In addition, it is
even projected that robots’ productivity will be so high that there will be enough capital
to provide free education, and healthcare and that poverty and starvation will be
eradicated.

However, if computers are smarter than humans, most people will lose their jobs. It is
already predicted that a large proportion of human drivers will be replaced by robots by
2025. Even those working in creative industries such as music and video production are
also at risk of losing their jobs since there are already machines that can compose
songs that are almost indistinguishable from those of human artists. Thus, given that
there will not be much that should be done by humans, our race will almost definitely
evolve into helpless, purposeless, physically and mentally lazy creatures. To make
matters worse, if robots were smart enough to make decisions for themselves, this
would pose an existential threat to humankind. These problems negate any of the
possible benefits mentioned above.

In conclusion, while there are certainly reasons to be excited about the introduction of
artificial intelligence, I share the reservations of people who dread find this
development dreadful. (312 words)
It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural
environment, such as the South pole. Do the advantages of this development
outweigh the disadvantages?

Given the availability of modern means of transport such as planes and cruise ships, and
refrigeration technologies, traveling to remote parts of the world is no longer an
impossible task. I believe that this possibility benefits both tourists and scientists.

Exploring far-flung natural places can be beneficial to travelers. No matter how many
tourist attractions there are in the world, a number of globe-trotters still crave novelty,
for example in the form of new activities or untouched destinations. By traveling to an
island that is unknown to the vast majority of people, for instance, travelers may have a
chance to participate in exotic religious practices of indigenous people, feast their
eyes on rarely seen plants and animals and try new food and experience a whole new
way of life. Although it is true that such a trip could be potentially dangerous, for
example in the form of climatic differences, animal attacks or conflicts with local
people, these risks are can be reduced by careful preparation.

Scientists can also benefit from visiting untouched parts of the world. Regardless of
how much we already know about the world, there is still much that is unknown in the
world of science and visiting such places could give scientists answers to many existing
and future problems. We can see this in the way novel viruses break out every once in
a while, and how global warming is affecting lives and habitats of elusive animals living
in heavily wooded areas and deep under the sea. Granted, it is reasonable to worry
about the potential harm done to these animals and their habitats by these trips,
but with pertinent regulations in place, the authorities can eliminate such a
possibility.

In conclusion, visiting remote areas of the world can impart otherwise unachievable
lessons and experience in tourists and people in the scientific world. (303 words -
Written by Kiên Luyện)
It is observed that in many countries not enough students are choosing to study
science subjects. What are the causes? What are the effects on society?

It is true that there is a lack of students majoring in science-related fields. This could be
attributed to a number of factors and it could affect humans’ quality of life and the
economy of a country.

There are two main contributors to the shift away from science subjects among students.
In developed countries, science has already been prioritized over decades, which has
produced an abundance of people working in the science field. This surplus renders this
domain fiercely competitive, discouraging youngsters from choosing to study it. On the
other hand, in underdeveloped and developing nations, it is wiser for governments to
invest in the tourism industry, which yields immediate results. The proliferation of
lucrative jobs created to cater for increasing demands for tourist activities has attracted
a large proportion of young people in these countries, which explains the dearth of
students in science majors.

The lack of students studying science subjects may not pose any imminent drawback,
but in the long run, it could have a stultifying effect on the economy of a nation and
human health. Research has shown that productivity can only be improved if innovations
are made or new technologies are invented. It naturally follows that the corollary of the
dearth of science majors would perhaps hinder the economic progress of a society.
Furthermore, humans are still suffering from countless health problems that are
presently incurable and we can only hope that scientific breakthroughs can be made to
solve them. The move away from science education would prolong the suffering of ill
people and increase the number of deaths resulting from those health issues.

In conclusion, the tendency among young people to choose other areas of knowledge
rather than science can be ascribed to the high level of competition within the field in
developed countries and more attractive job opportunities in developing countries. This
development is deeply troubling as it would fail to enhance people’s well-being and
stultify economic growth in the long run. (328 words)
Scientists predict in the near future cars will be driven by computers, not people.
Why? Do you think it is a positive or negative development?

With many breakthroughs in the field of artificial intelligence, the scenario where cars
can drive themselves is no longer something out of a science-fiction novel. I believe that
this is a positive development overall, and I will explain why.

There are an array of factors leading scientists to believe that self-driving cars will soon
become a reality. Firstly, a range of similar AI technologies such as robot vacuums,
automatic sprinklers, and autopilot modes in planes are already introduced, and
infrastructure facilitating the use of driverless cars is already underway in major cities
such as Los Angeles and New York. More importantly, leading AI technology companies
in the US have already received the government go-ahead, as seen in recent tax cuts for
this sector. Finally, ride-hailing companies like Uber have announced that by 2025 they
will have had a half of their cars replaced by autonomous ones.

Although driverless cars may terminate a large number of driving jobs, this technology
will benefit people, the environment and society as a whole. On an environmental level,
self-driving cars tend to run on clean energy such as solar power, so the replacement of
fossil-based vehicles, which release a large amount of greenhouse gases into the air,
would curb air pollution. Furthermore, it is true that most people choose to live in city
centers so that they do not have to drive a long distance to their workplace or school.
Therefore, the introduction of self-driving cars would allow them to reside in suburban
areas because they could catch up on their sleep or relax in their cars. This would
reduce real estate prices, which confers substantial benefits for individuals, and also
alleviate the housing problem in urban areas.

In conclusion, the advent of autonomous cars would be greatly beneficial, on personal,

environmental and societal levels. Granted, it would cause job losses, but the
government could provide drivers who lost their job with unemployment benefits or
opportunities to reinvent themselves, for example in the form of vocational courses. (328
words)
Do u agree or disagree with the statement that the government should invest more
money in science education rather than other subjects to develop the country.

There is an opinion that the government should heavily subsidize science education to
foster faster development rather than other subjects. I believe that this capital allocation
is only fruitful in underdeveloped and developing countries because what developed
countries need to advance is beyond the purview of science.

Admittedly, allocating more funds for science subjects is optimal to enhance the overall
productivity of less technologically advanced countries. This is because if schools have
the financial support to have laboratories with modern equipment and organize scientific
competitions, more students may feel interest in and choose to study science subjects.
Perhaps, an influx of skilled workers who can adopt certain existing advanced
technologies to improve the productivity of different sectors will allow those countries to
advance economically. This can be seen in developing countries like Vietnam, where the
adoption of modern technologies in various fields has resulted in unprecedented levels
of economic growth. This feat would not have been achieved without increased state
subsidies for science education since the early 1990s.

Unlike less economically advantaged countries, which primarily aim to adopt existing
technologies, developed countries depend on innovations to boost economic
development. This forces schools to provide children with a range of different subjects
to boost their creativity levels. This can be seen in Finland, where children are allowed to
choose subjects of their interest and are encouraged to take singing and painting
lessons. As a result, this country has been one of a few countries in the world that
consistently boasts the most scientific breakthroughs and innovations. Had this country
allotted more financial resources to science education, it would have succumbed to the
dearth of creativity, grinding its economy to a halt.

In conclusion, while it is justifiable for underdeveloped and developing countries to

direct more capital to science education, providing more funds for other creative
subjects is a wiser course of action for developed countries. (314 words)
In schools and universities, girls tend to choose arts while boys like science. What
are the reasons for this trend and do you think this tendency should be changed?

It is observed that female students often major in arts, while their male counterparts are
more inclined to choose science disciplines. This trend probably stems from the fact that
each gender, by nature, cares about different aspects and it is wrong to change this
pattern because they opt for a certain major out of their own volition and their choice
should be respected.

There is a preponderance of empirical evidence suggesting that girls tend to be more

interested in people and feelings rather than things around them. For example, young
girls often play with dolls, which have human characteristics, rather than cars, and often
engage in dancing or singing activities, which are primarily invented to showcase human
feelings. Most young boys, on the other hand, are naturally curious about the nature of
phenomena around them rather than how someone feels. This predisposition manifests
itself in how boys tend to play with toy cars, guns and trains and in how they enjoy
solving Sudoku puzzles or playing chess. Thus, differences in choices of academic
pursuit can be attributed to human nature.

The fact that males tend to dominate science domains, while females do so in arts
majors should not be changed for several reasons. Firstly, people of each gender often
choose their major of study based on their passions and interests or on what they do
best, so their choice most certainly matches their personality and innate talent. Trying to
meddle with someone’s choice because of their gender is fundamentally sexist, and
utterly pointless. As for the latter, there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever if a boy, who
is naturally keen on the scientific side of things, is persuaded to pursue a singing or
acting career.

In conclusion, each gender seems to naturally take interests in different aspects of life,
and they should be allowed to do so. (309 words)
The range of technology available to people is increasing the gap between the rich
and the poor. Others think it has an opposite effect. Discuss both views and give
your opinions.

Opinions are divided on whether the increasing range of technological devices available
is widening or narrowing the gap between rich and poor. I believe that thanks to the
availability of modern technologies, the less well-off population now can enjoy most of
what used be preserved for the wealthy only.

Admittedly, there are certainly a large number of products that people in low-income
brackets cannot afford. For example, the latest model of an iPhone costs shy of 2000
dollars, which is possibly equivalent to a yearly income of a large section of society.
High-end products such as a Gucci handbag or a Rolex watch could cost hundreds of
thousands of dollars and it would be unthinkable that those families could ever afford to
pay for such items. Advancements in space technology have allowed people to travel
into space, but such a trip would cost over 200.000 dollars. This is surely unaffordable
for the masses.

However, for every item mentioned above, there are always a range of items that have
similar functions and are affordable for people from other economic classes. One can
easily purchase a smartphone with 100 dollars or buy a wrist watch that costs under 150
dollars. Similarly, although rich people can enjoy trip into space, the advent of virtual
reality allows less well-off people to experience what it is like to be in a weightless
environment and admire the vastness of the universe. Furthermore, the introduction of
refrigeration technologies has allowed food companies to export their products to other
regions, reducing prices of food and allowing more people to enjoy the same range of
food.

In conclusion, the increasing availability of technology has certainly helped in bridging

the chasm between rich and poor, as clearly shown in examples in preceding
paragraphs. (294 words)
Research into new medicines and treatments is essential. Should this research be
paid for by private companies or by the government?

Humans are now still faced with many presently incurable health problems, so
investing in discovering new medicines and effective treatments is of paramount
importance. However, opinions are divided on whether such investment should come
from the private sector or the government. I believe that both private medical
companies and the state should pay for healthcare research because they both
benefit from it.

Firstly, private businesses benefit from their subsidies for medical research, in
financial terms. For example, if they find an effective treatment to curb debilitating
effects of, say, drug withdrawal, or new contraception methods that do not have
side effects, they can make billions of dollars. The potential financial gain surely
encourages medical companies to expend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on
laboratory equipment and leading medical scientists. We see this in the way
pharmaceutical companies around the world are racing to find vaccine for COVID-19
in the hope that they could make a name for themselves and reap the financial rewards.

The government, on the other hand, has the obligation to ensure public health, and
subsidizing research in the healthcare sector is a way to fulfill it. Furthermore, a healthy
population is surely more productive, which is a clear precursor to economic growth and
an a priori justification for the call for an increase in state spending on healthcare
research. Not only this, if there are fewer people suffering from debilitating health
problems, the government can cut back on subsidies for their treatments. Such savings
could be reallocated to other much needed areas such as education and infrastructure.

In conclusion, both the private sector and the government should invest in medical
studies because they benefit a great deal from such investment. (285 words - written by
Kien Luyen)
Some people say history is one the most important school subjects. Other people
think that, in today’s world, subjects like science and technology are more
important than history. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Opinions are divided on the role of history in a school curriculum, with some saying that
it is as important as other key knowledge areas like science and technology.
However, I side with those who believe that history is not as relevant as science and
technology subjects in our modern world.

Admittedly, history allows schoolchildren to learn about past events and instills a sense
of patriotism in the young. For example, by reading thoroughly about the battle of Dien
Bien Phu, Vietnamese students understand how much blood was shed, how many lives
were lost so that the sovereignty of their country could be ensured. Because children
now are living in a globalized world, without these lessons, they may no longer treasure
the traditional values and have no attachment to their home country. However, to say
that history is one of the most important disciplines of knowledge is to ignore the fact
that hardly ever does a company recruit anyone based on his or her understanding of
history. Literacy and computer skills, on the other hand, are required in most job these
days, rendering history only secondary to these areas of knowledge.

Also, science and technology subjects enhance children’s employability skills in ways
that history cannot. For example, with the ability to work well with numbers and modern
gadgets and software, one is suitable to work in many different jobs, such as accountant,
shop assistance, or librarian, among countless others. Similarly, being adept in
mathematics and physics as well as chemistry allows one to choose a wide range of
career paths, as seen in the way most majors in higher education require applicants to
have performed well in these subjects at high school. History, by contrast, is only
important for those who want to become philosophers, history teachers or historians.

In conclusion, although history is surely beneficial to children, it is not as important as

key subject areas such as literacy, computer skills, as well as science and technology.
These days, more and more schools focus on science and social science subjects
and choose not to teach children to sing, paint, sculpt, write creatively or dance.
Should school-children study the arts?

It is true that science and technology have permeated almost every aspect of our life and
the demand for workers in these two sectors is undoubtedly increasing. Schools, one of
whose primary roles is to provide a sufficient supply of manpower for industries, either
are pressured into or are deliberately focusing on science subjects to cater for such an
increase. I believe that this shift is largely justifiable, but schoolchildren should also be
given the opportunity to dabble in the arts because it not only benefits them socially and
emotionally, but also helps them think creatively and become more patient.

Firstly, children who take lessons in painting, sculpting or writing tend to be more
creative and patient. This is because they need to tap into their imagination to create or
portray something, and it often takes much time to make a painting or a sculpture or
write a piece of poem or prose. While their enhanced creativity greatly benefits them in
the modern workplace where the ability to think creatively will help them thrive in the
face of the encroachment of automation, patience allows them to persist and see their
goals to the end instead of succumbing to hardship along the way to success.

Furthermore, children who study the arts learn to express their feelings through different
means, and this benefits them emotionally. The reason for this is that not everyone is
capable of or willing to talk to someone about their pain or suffering, and singing and
writing can help children freely illustrate their emotions. Not only this, those taking
lessons in the arts out of their own volition tend to take great pleasure in doing it, and
therefore the arts can be a means of relaxation after stressful school hours. Finally, they
can make friends with people who share their interests and passions, which surely
benefits them socially.

In conclusion, teaching children about the arts can help them to foster important virtues
such as patience, and creativity and provide them with different ways to express
themselves, relax and widen their social circle.
In today’s world of advanced science and technology, we still greatly value our
artists such as musicians, painters and writers. What can arts tell us about life that
science and technology cannot?

It is true that science can explain the nature of many phenomena happening around us,
ranging from the impact of alcohol on our health to the response of our brain to pain and
even the formation of clouds. However, other aspects of human life including human
feelings are better illustrated in the form of arts.

Firstly, human feelings still leave scientists a large number of questions to be answered.
For example, the response of our body and brain to nervousness and excitedness is
exactly the same, as seen in the way our armpits and palms begin to sweat, how our
heart starts to beat faster, and how adrenaline is produced in a certain region in our
brain. Thus, even the most advanced medical technologies such as an MRI scanner,
which could detail how our brain respond to external and internal cues, will show the
same results for those two feelings, thus failing to tell what a person is viscerally going
through. A song, on the other hand, could deliver the unique feelings of the composer to
the extent that there are now over 2 billion songs written about love, but they tell very
different stories and shades of feelings.

Similarly, psychoanalysts, philosophers, and scientists alike are still struggling to provide
possible answers to metaphysical questions like what constitutes happiness. In
scientific terms, there are certainly some preconditions to happiness, for example in the
form of personal achievement, material possessions and relationships. However, there
are highly respected people who have risen to the position of power, possessed an
imaginable amount of wealth and had a good marriage life, but still feel miserable to the
point of suicide. This, scientifically, does not make much sense, but many writers,
composers or painters have successfully portrayed such people’s misery by means of a
poem, song or painting. This can be seen in how Billy Eillish, arguably the most
successful singer in the US at the moment, described her loneliness underneath her
glamour and success in “When the party is over”.

In conclusion, even the most erudite scientists are still baffled by questions pertaining to
human feelings, which could be reasonably depicted in many different forms of arts.
Some people think that introducing new technology can improve people’s quality
of life in developing countries. However, others believe that free education should
be offered. Discuss both views and give your opinion?

Opinions are divided on whether modern technologies or free education should be

provided for people in developing nations so that their life could be improved. I believe
that both approaches should be adopted at the same time because the former would
yield immediate results, while the latter could have a long-lasting effect.

On the one hand, the provision of new technology could surely enhance people’s quality
of life in poor countries. For example, with the adoption of advanced farming techniques,
crop yields would significantly increase. This can be seen in southern parts of Vietnam,
where farmers used to harvest crops by hand, which was time- consuming and
ineffective, and suffer from drought and pests. After the adoption of more advanced
technologies like pesticides, effective water control and machinery, they were liberated
and began to enjoy the abundance of food supplies. Certainly, had it not been for new
technologies, Vietnamese farmers would have struggled to improve their quality of life.

On the other hand, offering education for citizens in economically disadvantaged parts
of the world would have long-term benefits. Chief of these is that this measure allows
more people to be properly educated, which would result in a better educated and
consequently more productive workforce. This naturally acts as a precursor to economic
growth, which is accompanied by increased living standard for everyone. Furthermore,
better educated parents are repeatedly proven to be better at raising children, for
example by adopting healthy diets, or child-rearing practices. In other words, the
economic and individual benefits can be perpetuated and reverberate through
generations to come.

In conclusion, while the introduction of new technologies could beget immediate

benefits, the impact of the provision of free education could echo through generations.
Therefore, both initiatives should be taken in order to help inhabitants of less well-off
countries. (299 words)
Increase the cost of fuel

The best way to solve world’s environmental problem is to increase the cost of fuel.
Do you agree or disagree?

Some people believe that increasing the cost of gasoline is the best way to address
environmental problems. In this essay, however, I will challenge this school of thought.

Firstly, we need to factor in the futility of raising the cost of fuel in the cause of
environmental protection. Of course, one might argue that such a measure could force
some people, especially money-conscious ones, to give up their private vehicles for
public transport. This, according to this theory, ultimately results in less fuel being
consumed and lower levels of toxic gases being released into the air. However, the
amount of greenhouse gases emitted by personal vehicles is negligible, compared to
that of industrial plants or even cow farts. This very fact renders the effects of increasing
the price of petrol on the environment insignificant.

To add further credence to my assertion, I note the root cause of most serious
environmental issues: our energy-hungry lifestyles. For example, the accelerated
depletion of natural resources that are used to produce electricity and power machines
can be attributed to the insatiable thirst for energy of mankind. By the very same token,
global warming and pollution, arguably the two most severe environmental problems,
are the dreadful knock-on effects stemming from humans excessively consuming
energy. As such, the key to solving the world’s environmental problems is to find
alternative sources of energy. This could be done by exploiting solar, wind and tidal
power, all of which are unlimited and clean sources of energy that are largely
underdeveloped.

In conclusion, it is a mistake to assume that increasing the price of fuel is the best way to
alleviate problems posed to the environment, because the key to solving these issues is
to develop renewable energy.
(288 words)
It is a natural process for animal species to become extinct. There is no reason
why people should try to prevent this from happening. Do you agree or disagree?

Many people point to natural selection where the extinction of certain animals is
unavoidable as the reason why trying to prevent this from happening is largely pointless.
In this essay, however, I will challenge this school of thought.

Firstly, allowing animals to go extinct is tantamount to paving the way for our own
extinction. This is because the interconnected nature of the ecosystem, which governs
and affects all lives on earth, could easily be disrupted by the disappearance of certain
keystone animals. For example, Australian bees have disappeared in the North of this
country due to unregulated harmful farming activities, leading to a large number of other
plants and animals disappearing along with them. Farmers in these places can no longer
grow crops because of sudden climatic changes caused by this unfortunate incident.
Were we to turn a blind eye to such events, we would soon face the demise of our own
race.

To add further credence to my assertion, I note the cost-effectiveness of protecting

wildlife. In my view, If some keystones animals such as bees died out, causing mass
extinctions, the amount of money and manpower needed to address the resulting
changes to our own habitat would far outweigh the amount spent on animal protection.
To make matters worse, there is no guarantee that we would be able to develop our
technologies to cope with such dramatic changes. In facet, no existing technologies are
making any discernible contributions to the battle against climate change, let alone the
looming end of our own kind.

In conclusion, it is a mistake to assume that there is no point in trying to save wild

animals from dying out. This is because preserving other animals is a cost-effective
measure that could give us a fighting chance to ensure the very existence of mankind.
(301 words)
Some people say that too much attention and too many resources are given in the
protection of wild animals and birds. Do you agree or disagree?

Some people believe that we are paying too much attention to and spending too much
money on protecting wild animals. In this essay, however, I will challenge this school of
thought.

Firstly, the amount of attention that we are paying to wildlife is far from enough. In my
view, people now are occupied by a huge amount of workload when they are at school
or at the workplace and an abundance of entertainment choices when they come home.
Only a tiny proportion of the human population reads ore watch news about how much
damage humankind has done to the environment as knowing about what is trendy rather
than serious environmental problems is more satisfying when they discuss with their
friends and colleagues. Hence, it is sensible to conclude that more attention should be
directed to preserving wild animals.

It is also unreasonable to say that too much money is being spent on the protection of
wildlife as it also ensures the survival of our own kind. If some keystones animals, such
as bees, died out, causing mass extinctions, and threatening our very one existence, the
amount of money and manpower needed to address the resulting changes to our own
habitat would far outweigh the amount spent on animal protection. To make matters
worse, there is no certainty that we would be able to develop our technologies to cope
with such dramatic changes since no existing technologies are making any discernible
contributions to the battle against climate change, let alone the looming end of our own
kind.

In conclusion, it is a mistake to assume that too much attention, manpower and money
is being directed towards the protection of wildlife.
(279 words)
Climate change is a phenomenon that affects countries all over the world. Many
people strongly believe that it is the responsibility of individuals, rather than
corporations and governments, to deal with this problem.
To what extent do you agree?

It is true that climate change, which is a natural phenomenon that threatens not only our
lives but all so affects the quality of life of our future generations, presents a challenge to
us all. However, I strongly disagree that the responsibility to mitigate it falls only on
individuals’ shoulders, as I will explain now.

Firstly, private citizens cannot effect large-scale changes in the way that governments in
conjunction with corporations do. Any environmental projects are likely to require a
monumental amount of money and manpower that no individual alone can provide. For
example, a current environmental campaign in India, thanks to which over 66 million
trees were planted to battle climate change, involved over 1.5 million people and
thousands of environmentalists. The sheer number of trees or people needed for this to
work is indeed so overwhelming that no one would think that it could ever be done by
any individual alone.

Of course, people can try to become more energy-efficient, reuse plastic bags and
recycle more, but these actions cannot bring about any discernible changes to the
environment. Governments, on the other hand, can enact laws requiring both individuals
and large corporations to abide by certain restrictions. These could range from
increasing prices of energy to cut consumption and greenhouse gases emissions, to
requiring companies to reduce how much waste they produce and forcing them to
change how they treat that waste. If companies actively upgraded their waste treating
system, this could also make a significant positive contribution to the battle against
climate change.

In conclusion, governments, corporations and individuals all need to shoulder the

responsibility in the fight against climate change.
(274 words)
Solving environmental problems should be the responsibility of one international
organization rather than each national government. Do you agree or disagree?

Some people believe that one international organization should be established to

address environmental issues. In this essay, however, I will challenge this school of
thought.

Firstly, it is enormously difficult to decide whether a problem in a certain country should

be tackled first. To provide a supporting example, one need look no further than the
infamous 2019 blaze occurring in Amazon forest. While large countries, such as the US,
the UK and Germany all eagerly wished to intervene to tackle the incessant wildfires,
Brazil, whose forest was burned, turned a blind eye to such an event, claiming that it
was nothing out of the ordinary. Undoubtedly, finding a common ground among over
200 countries in the world would be an extremely difficult, nay impossible, task.

To add further credence to my assertion, I note the many impossible tasks where the
imaginary world organization had to work out how much each country would have to
contribute to the cause of environmental protection. Countries where there are serious
environmental problems would supposedly have to pay more or countries, but these
may happen to be the most economically disadvantaged ones. Similarly, nations with
the most resources would be expected to pay more, but they may not suffer from any
imminent environmental problems. As such, it is nigh on impossible to calculate the
amount of money, manpower and other resources that a nation would have to contribute
to preserving the environment.

In conclusion, it would be unworkable to found a global organization in the hope that it

could address all environmental problems. This is due to the unachievable unanimity
among nations when they have to make decisions on what problems should be
prioritized and how much each nation would need to contribute. (288 words)
The amount of rubbish in our world is increasing at a rapid rate. Why is this
happening? What can be done to reduce it?

It is true that countries around the world are rife with bags, plastic bottles and rubbish.
This state of affairs can be attributed to several reasons and some viable solutions that
can be adopted to alleviate the situation will be outlined in this essay.

Three main factors are to blame for the increasing waste production worldwide. Firstly,
the pervasive presence of advertising can create a growing demand for consumer goods,
and as a result, greater amounts of waste will be produced through production and
consumption of goods. To make matters worse, more plastic bags and containers are
being used more than ever because of the arrival of food delivery services. Finally, the
low rates of recycling are the next possible contributor to our planet being strewn with
waste. In most countries, many manufacturers gravitate towards virgin materials, which
are often cheaper than recyclable ones, in the course of production.

To address the problem of waste, it should be, first and foremost, brought to the fore
and then it can be tackled by education. With regard to making the problem known to
the public, this can be done by mounting an international awareness campaign about
the dangers of over-consumption and environmental problems posed by waste, and
celebrities who are trusted by the public can also help spread the message. As for
education, schoolchildren should be educated about how to reduce, reuse and recycle.
Since these young people will grow up and act as role models to their children, the
impact of such an initiative will reverberate through generations to come.

In conclusion, the unimaginable amount of waste produced worldwide can be ascribed

to advertising, food shipping services and low rates of recycling, and the solutions would
lie in awareness-raising campaigns, the participation of high-profile public figures, and
education.
(298 words)
The natural resources such as oil, forests and fresh water are being consumed at
an alarming rate.
What problems does it cause? How can we solve these problems?

It is true that the planet’s resources are being depleted at a staggering rate. This can
lead to several problems, and this essay will suggest some viable measures to remedy
the situation.

Two main problems can arise from the acceleration of the depletion of natural resources.
Firstly, the environment will be adversely affected. Take, for example, forests, which can
absorb carbon dioxide, produce oxygen and stabilize the earth. Deforestation is
disrupting this vital system, and this, coupled with the increasing levels of greenhouse
gases from burning fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, is compounding the problem of
climate change. As well as this, drinking water is steadily lost due to the fact that most
companies do not treat their waste properly before discharging it into rivers and the
ocean, contaminating water sources. This spells disaster for lives of all plants and
animals on earth and humans alike.

To address the aforementioned problems, they should be, first and foremost, be brought
to the fore. This can be done by mounting a global awareness campaign about the
dangers of consuming the planet’s resources in a reckless manner, and celebrities who
are trusted by the public can also help spread the message. Perhaps, a long-term
solution is to educate young people about how to be more energy- efficient, so that the
next generation will not take drinking water, forests and fossil fuels for granted. Since
these young people will grow up and act as role models to their children, the impact of
such an initiative will reverberate through generations to come.

In conclusion, the planet being depleted at an alarming pace can cause many far-
reaching problems to arise, in the form of climate change and loss of drinking water, and
the solutions should lie in awareness-raising campaigns, the participation of celebrities
and education.
(300 words)
As artificial intelligence advances and becomes a common part of everyday life,
some people worry that computerized systems will make many jobs obsolete.
Some even worry that AI will eventually do this to teachers and take over their
children’s and grandchildren’s classrooms.
Do you think a computer can replace a human teacher?

Given the fact that many groundbreaking breakthroughs in AI technology have been
made recently, some people believe that AI will even permeate future classrooms
where the presence of teachers will no longer be needed. Personally, I disagree
with this school of thought for several reasons.

One might argue that the role of a teacher in traditional classrooms is fundamentally
about transferring knowledge to learners, which could totally be done by AI teachers. In
fact, AI teachers’ knowledge would be invariably superior to that of their human
counterparts, and this would render AI teachers capable of delivering lessons better
than human ones normally do. However, this line of reasoning is not sound because it
fails to factor in the fact that lessons given by AI teachers would be boring and clinical,
causing young people to lose interest in learning. Human teachers, on the other hand,
have the ability to recognize how their students feel towards their lessons and make
quick adjustments to their teaching plans to keep learners engaged.

To add further credence to my assertion, I note the frightening scenario where AI

teachers could take over classrooms successfully. This would mean that they would
have the ability to recognize children’s emotions, appeal to their feelings and deal with
children’s unpredictable behaviors, all of which are integral in the teaching job. This
would also mean that AI teachers could make decisions by themselves, and decide what
course of action should be taken to deal with a misbehaved child. Some punishments
that are thought to be necessary and suitable by AI teachers might turn out to be
morally wrong or even dangerous. For this very reason, it is very unlikely that we would
ever develop an AI to the point where it can substitute a real teacher in classrooms.

In conclusion, it is a mistake to assume that human teachers would ever be replaced by

robots. This is because lessons delivered by AI teachers would not arouse students’
interest and it would be dangerous to let AI teachers take complete control of the
classroom.
(348 words)
Developments in technology have brought various environmental problems. Some
believe that people need to live simpler lives to solve such problems. Others,
however, believe technology is the way to solve these problems.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

There is a preponderance of evidence suggesting that technological advances, such as

plastic bags, fossil-based vehicles and hydroelectricity have posed certain dangers to
the environment. In order to address such problems and preserve the Earth as we know
it, some people suggest that people lead simpler lives and consume less energy, while
others think differently, saying that only technological advancements could holistically
solve those problems. I believe that the latter view is more justifiable for several reasons.

Admittedly, one might argue that by changing our lifestyles, we could effect positive
changes to the environment. This is predicated on the assumption that we could all cut
back on the use of plastic bags, straws and packaging, avoid making extraneous trips to
reduce our carbon footprint, and reduce our electricity consumption so that less oil, coal
and gas is burned. However, this line of reasoning is not sound because alternatives to
plastic bags could do more harm than good, as seen in the way alternative products
made of wood or wool could lead to deforestation or severely contaminate drinking
water respectively. Similarly, asking people to travel less is decidedly difficult, nay,
impossible because it may violate their freedom of choice, and deciding which trip is
unnecessary is also entirely problematic.

Only by developing new technologies could we deal with the aforementioned

conundrums, and there is now a large body of empirical evidence undergirding this
viewpoint. For example, Bill Gates and his team have designed a technology that
harnesses solar power to melt most commonly used metals. This could help reduce the
amount of fossil fuel needed, which is accompanied with lower amounts of greenhouse
gases released. In addition, many leading scientists in the field of energy predicted that
by the year 2030, solar energy will have become even cheaper than non-renewable
sources, making it possible for us to sustain our current lifestyles, while reducing our
carbon footprint. Also, plastic bags, though rife with problems, are currently the optimal
choice, so not until an invention come along to replace them could we hope to terminate
the use of such an item.

In conclusion, although there are reasons to say that we should lead a simpler lifestyle
for the sake of the environment, it is wiser to develop more advanced technologies to
resolve existing environmental problems. Human ingenuity has helped us battle
countless existential challenges over the course of human history and it will help us
prevail. (403 words)
There are more workers who work from home and more students who study from
home. This is because computer technology is more and more easily accessible
and cheaper. Do you think it is a positive or negative development?

The increasing affordability of modern technologies such as computers and

smartphones has facilitated teleworking and virtual learning. As such, there has been a
progressive increase in the number of remote workers and learners in many parts of the
world. While the shift towards working and studying from home may cause some
problems, the overall impact has been tremendously positive.

Admittedly, the drawbacks of remote working and learning are evident. As for the former,
teleworkers are more susceptible to psychological problems such as boredom and
depression, due to the lack of face-to-face interaction. Related to this is the fact that
adults who opt for working from home for childcare or eldercare reasons tend to find it
hard to concentrate on their work, hence lower productivity. Similar challenges are also
found in internet-based learning. Online lessons lack the element of competition that
traditional classes offer, and there is inevitably less direct interaction between students
and teachers. These factors may negatively affect students’ motivation to study, leading
to lower academic results.

Despite the negatives mentioned above, the trend towards learning and working
remotely is a welcome development for a variety of reasons. On an individual level, while
distant learners can study whenever and wherever is convenient, teleworkers can still
take care of their children or elderly members and earn money at the same time. They
also have complete freedom to design their learning and working environment to best
suit their personal preferences and needs, enhancing their productivity and creativity.
On a business level, institutions and companies allowing distant learning and remote
working can reduce operation costs in the form of fewer classrooms and offices, and
lower electricity bills.

In conclusion, although the decision to study or work from home may have a negative
impact on people’s work and educational outcomes, this development is a positive one
overall. This is provided that virtual learners and teleworkers eliminate possible
distractions at home and socialize with their friends and family so that their productivity
and mental health are not affected. (327 words)
Space travel has been possible for some time and some people believe that space
tourism could be developed in the future.
Do you think it is a positive or negative development.

It is true that traveling into space is no longer something out of a science fiction novel
and the development of space tourism is still in its early stages. While I acknowledge the
potential benefits of this form of tourism, I believe it to be an unwelcome development.

One might argue that while going deep into space, space travelers have the opportunity
to experience weightlessness, admire the vastness of the universe and watch the Earth
from afar. However, these experiences are achievable without having to make a trip into
space. For example, by spending a fraction of the price of a ticket into space, one can
experience what it is like to be in a weightless environment in some advanced
entertainment facilities. Similarly, given the development of virtual reality technologies,
one is now allowed to ‘venture’ into space, and ‘see’ the surface of the moon or Mars
without actually having to travel there.

Another negative ramification of space tourism is related to space garbage in the form of
used-up fuel tanks and discarded parts of spaceships. The failure to comprehend the
seriousness of this problem would result in countless chunks of metal space debris
flying around the Earth, preventing further exploration into space. Also, there is no
guarantee that discarded parts of spaceships would not hit vital satellites or fall back
into the earth. While the former would disrupt communication, the latter would be as
cataclysmic as a small meteor shower. As these risks are too big for humans to afford,
the benefits of developing space tourism are simply not justified.

In conclusion, although the benefits of space travel on an individual level are clear, they
pale in comparison with its problems, rendering this trend negative.
(290 words)
In the future, it seems more difficult to live on the Earth. Some people think more
money should be spent on researching other planet to live, such as Mars. To what
extent do you agree or disagree?

As the nightmare scenario where the Earth will become completely uninhabitable for
humans is already on the horizon, more resources should be allocated to space
exploration in order to find an alternative planet for mankind. However, in this essay I will
challenge this school of thought.

One might argue that it is necessary to spend more money on research into making
other planets inhabitable. This is predicated on the assumption that the process of
global warming has passed the point where it could ever be reversed, spelling disaster
for all lives on Earth. According to this theory, colonizing another planet such as Mars is
the key to the survival of the human race. However, this line of reasoning is not sound as
it does not factor the impracticality of such a venture into the equation. As a rocket that
could send three astronauts into space costs around 200 million dollars, building
enough spaceships to move a part of the human population to live on another planet is
simply impossible.

Another reason to advocate against space exploration is that there is still hope to
preserve the environment as we know it. Consider Bill Gates, who has funded many
projects addressing the energy predicament, which is the root cause of global warming.
Recently, he and his team have reported substantial progress in exploiting nuclear
power, a clean but previously perceived unstable source of electricity. They have also
introduced a device that could concentrate solar energy to melt various metals,
potentially eliminating the need to burn coal to do so, and consequently reducing the
amount of CO2 emitted from this process. Thus, if more money were used to subsidize
innovative ideas, we could still make the Earth habitable for generations to come,
rendering the brought forth idea unnecessary.

In conclusion, it is a mistake to assume that more money should be directed to research

into space colonization. This is because it is unrealistic to colonize other planets and
many ideas that can change our habitat for the better are woefully underfunded.
(338 words)
Nowadays because of digital technology it is possible for not only studios but also
individuals to produce their own films.
Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

It is true that technological advances in the film industry have enabled individuals to
make their own films. I believe that this trend is a very positive one.

Firstly, we need to factor in the viewing options that the brought forth development
offers viewers. When making films was a reserve for only film companies, film- lovers
were restricted to several films on TV and had to go to the cinema to indulge in their
hobby. Nowadays, the proliferation of sitcoms, short films and parodies made by
amateur film producers on social media sites like Facebook and Youtube allows internet
users to watch as much as they wish. In addition, the increasing popularity of these
works can certainly be monetized in the form of advertising for certain products. This
possibility encourages people of all ages to dabble in acting and movie-directing and
reduces monetary concerns, which are notoriously associated with these careers.

To add further credence to my assertion, I note the fact that being allowed to make their
own films, film creators can now express their creativity and ideas beyond conventional
limits and without being artistically judged by so-called professionals. As arts are purely
subjective, this will be a step forward in the film making industry. For example, with only
an ipad and a simple movie editing software, 1977 Vlog, a group of young creative
producers, made parodies of famous Vietnamese pieces of literature to voice their
opinion about problems in their community. Despite being ridiculed based on the
standards contemporarily applied in the film industry, their works have quickly gained
popularity, challenged the status quo and revolutionalized the way films are generally
perceived and made.

In conclusion, the fact that individuals can now produce their own films is a welcome
development because it benefits movie-lovers, movie creators and the movie industry as
a whole.
(304 words)
Scientific research should be carried out and controlled by governments rather
than private companies. Do you agree or disagree?

Although our life has been revolutionized by countless inventions and innovations that
have been made by private companies or individuals, some people maintain that
scientific research should only be conducted by governmental entities. However, in this
essay I will challenge this school of thought.

Firstly, we need to factor in government decisions about what types of research should
take priority. In my view, if the government of a certain country prioritizes weaponry
research over healthcare or education-related programs, its citizens may suffer from
preventable diseases or woefully die of hunger. This can be seen in North Korea, whose
military budget accounts for a majority of taxpayers’ money. As a result of the
government allocating funds from healthcare and education to the military sector,
citizens in this country are substantially low-educated and receive poor healthcare. This
example sheds light on why overcontrol of governments on scientific research would be
very risky and counterproductive.

To add further credence to my assertion, I note the profound impact of non-

governmental research on our lives over recent centuries. An example that aptly
illustrates my view has to do with electricity, arguably the most important invention
throughout the history of mankind. Electricity was discovered by Benjamin Franklin, who
was working as an independent researcher at the time. Undoubtedly, if he had not been
allowed to carry out research on this type of energy, there would be no guarantee that it
would have ever been found and humans would ever achieve this level of development.

In conclusion, it would be wrong to assume that governments should have total control
over whether certain scientific projects should be carried out or not. This is because
governmental interference in the world of science is fraught with peril and lots of
life-changing inventions were made by either individuals or private firms rather than
state-run ones.
(306 words)
There are many inventions through human history, some people think the invention
of the internet is the most important. Agree or disagree?

Some people think that the advent of the internet is the most important invention of
mankind. In this essay, however, I will challenge this school of thought.

One might argue that the internet has profound effects on almost every aspect of our
lives and should be considered the most important invention of all. This is predicated on
the assumption that people now are able to connect and trade with one another without
any geographical constraints, streamlining people’s communication and business
activities.. Also, people’s quality of life has been enhanced significantly since we can
now have a much wider range of entertainment choices on the internet than ever before.
However, the internet depends entirely on electricity, and therefore, this renders the
invention of the internet less important than that of electricity.

What is more, the discovery of fire since early humans had revolutionized the way in
which the human race ate and helped shape who we are today. We could never have
developed traits, such as compassion and empathy, which separate us from other
animals, had we still eaten raw animals’ flesh. More importantly, fire also helped keep
our ancestors alive during cold winters as well as turn land occupied by grass into
irrigated land. In this respect, the impact of the internet on the survival of humans
certainly pales in comparison with that of fire since our forefathers could live perfectly
fine without the internet several decades ago.

In concluding, for the reasons outlined above, it stands to reason that the invention of
the internet is perhaps of less intrinsic and survival importance than that of electricity
and fire.
(274 words)
Some people think that changing jobs periodically is good. What is your opinion?

Some people believe that it is beneficial for people to change their jobs from time to time.
I personally think that there is little to disagree with in this school of thought, as I will
explain now.

One might argue that people will face many challenges when changing their employers.
This is predicated on the assumption that new employers tend to question job-hoppers’
loyalty and resilience, and therefore, these jobseekers may face higher risks of getting
rejected. However, this line of reasoning is not sound as employers nowadays value
one’s ability to deliver results and complete tasks rather than one’s willingness to stay
on the same job, and their resilience is by no means reflected by the number of years on
the former job.

To add further credence to my assertion, I note that a new job means new opportunities,
new challenges, and new working styles. Most people who have worked in a profession
for a long time feel that they can no longer improve their skills or gain new experience.
Also, some find that their current job cannot make the best use of their abilities. For
these people, perhaps a career change can open windows to better opportunities and
drive them to increase skills. These skills will make them much more employable and
less dependent on the health of a certain industry. This is very desirable given that the
erratic nature of the job market means that no job is stable.

In concluding, making a career change from time to time is beneficial because it opens
up new opportunities for workers and enables them to improve their chance of
continued employment.
(272 words)
As people spend a major part of adult life at the place of work, job satisfaction is
an important part of individual well-being. What are the factors that contribute to
job satisfaction? Are all the expectations for job satisfaction realistic?

It is true that people now spend a large chunk of their life working, and therefore job
satisfaction is becoming more important for each and every individual than ever. I
believe that both intrinsic and extrinsic factors contribute to job satisfaction and argue
that most jobs often fail to meet the expectations of job holders.

From my vantage point, most of the factors that influence one’s levels of job satisfaction
are extrinsic. The most important is perhaps material needs, such as income, housing,
paid holiday or bonus, to name but a few. These are the main elements that an employee
will normally look into when evaluating whether a job is desirable or not. In addition,
people often crave for a positive self-image and to have their contribution valued and
appreciated.

Also, some other important factors are intrinsic. For example, employees who are
optimistic and have a positive outlook on life are more likely to achieve higher job
satisfaction irrespective of the job or the workplace they are in. This is because optimism
allows individuals to function well under pressure, while pessimism leads people to
worry about unreasonable things and feelings, causing them to waste time and derive
much less satisfaction from their work.

One may argue that rewards can address the extrinsic factors mentioned above;
however, not everyone can receive such privileges since only those with the best
performance are rewarded. This excludes a large part of workers from getting the said
external motivation. As well as this, people are intrinsically different, and therefore, it is
impractical to expect everyone to be optimistic to obtain more satisfaction at work.

In concluding, most jobs cannot live up to workers’ expectations due to several inner
and external factors that contribute largly to their levels of job satisfaction. (295 words)
Some people think that shops should not be allowed to sell food or drink that has
been scientifically proved to be bad for people's health.
Do you agree or disagree?

Some medical experts and nutritionists believe that unhealthy food should not be
allowed in stores. In this essay, however, I will challenge this school of thought.

One might argue that it is necessary for the government to impose a ban on unhealthy
food, such as fast food, sugary drinks and processed food, to name but a few. This is
predicated on the assumption that there is a correlation between the consumption of
these products with the rise in the rates of self-preventable diseases, such as obesity
and diabetes. However, this line of reasoning is not sound because the likelihood of
people getting such diseases is dependent on their lifestyle as a whole, not just their diet.
In other words, those who eat fast food every day, but also work out regularly, are by no
means more prone to gaining weight than those eating a healthy diet but leading a
sedentary lifestyle.

Other reasons to reject the ban on fast food are related to the unaffordability of healthier
food to a large proportion of people and the nature of today’s jobs. With regard to the
former, low-income earners simply do not have a choice but to opt for fast food.
Statistics suggest that the majority of fast food eaters are from low-income brackets,
meaning that they cannot afford to eat more fresh fruits, vegetables and other types of
healthy food, which are often considered extravagant items for these people. In addition
to this, for many whose hectic schedule and heavy workload do not allow them to get
enough sleep, let alone spend an hour every day cooking healthy food for themselves,
fast food seems to be their only choice.

In concluding, for the reasons outlined above, it stands to reason that the benefits of
enacting laws on the so-called “unhealthy food” are largely exaggerated and such a ban
is likely to compound many people’s struggle.
(314 words)
Scientists generally agree that the consumption of junk food is detrimental to
health. Some people believe that the answer to this problem is education. Others
disagree, saying that it will not work.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Despite warnings by healthcare experts and scientists, the consumption of junk food
has been on the rise in many parts of the world. Many posit education as the panacea
for this problem, while others say that such a measure would not yield results and I
agree.

Granted, one might argue that education is efficacious in curbing the consumption of
junk food. This is predicated on the assumption that fast food eaters are simply not
aware of the health risks associated with their dietary choices. According to this theory,
if they are better informed about how susceptible they are to diet-related problems such
as obesity and cardiovascular diseases, they may avoid eating fast food altogether.
However, this line of reasoning is not sound as many simply do not have a choice but to
eat fast food due to their financial hardship. Even if they are well aware of the dangers
involved in their food choices, they cannot afford more salubrious foods, which generally
cost significantly more than a meal at McDonald’s or KFC.

Other reasons to question the efficacy of education are related to people’s fast-paced
lifestyles and the bombardment of advertisements for unhealthy food. Most working
people, even those in the field of healthcare themselves, find it increasingly difficult to
spare some time to cook a meal for themselves and their families due to their hectic
schedule. As a result, they have to resort to readily-made meals or processed food,
while their children are left to eat at will. These youngsters’ obvious choice is fast food
because of its tastiness and convenience. Furthermore, the impact of awareness-
raising campaigns to exhort people to change their eating habits would pale in
comparison with that of the overwhelming number of adverts for junk food.

In conclusion, placing education at the core of measures to deal with the high
consumption of junk food is an unwise course of action due to financial and lifestyle-
related factors and the ubiquity of advertising for such food.
(336 words)
Many people find it difficult to live a healthy life. What are the difficulties they face?
What can these people do to become healthier?

It is true that living a healthy life is becoming increasingly difficult. This state of affairs
can be attributed to several factors, and there are some steps that people need to take
to be healthier.

There are two main difficulties facing people who want to lead a healthy lifestyle. The
most important is that in light of the fast pace of modern life, we tend to pay scant
attention to our diets. Many householders, for example, now sporadically go to the
market to buy fresh and nutritious produce, and have to resort to processed food and
readily-made meals. Added to this is the excessive use of technological devices.
Youngsters in particular have become addicted to their screens, and instead of going
outside and enjoying physical activity with their friends and schoolmates as previous
generations would have done, they spend their entire day on the sofa, staring at their
tiny screens.

We can improve our well-being in a number of ways. The key step is to cut down on
takeaways and processed food and double the amount of fresh fruit we consume. Such
a change can make sure that we get enough vital vitamins and minerals that are
prerequisite for a healthy body and mind. Furthermore, everyone should spare some
time for gentle exercise: a brisk twenty-minute walk each day can considerably improve
a person’s fitness. Finally, those with a hectic lifestyle need to learn to manage their time
so that they can get enough sleep, cook for themselves, do yoga and meditate.

In conclusion, the fact that many people find it increasingly difficult to lead a healthy
lifestyle can be ascribed to their hectic lives and the abuse of technological devices. The
solutions would lie in individuals trying to eat healthily, taking up exercise, and managing
their time more effectively.
(303 words)
In Britain, when someone gets old they often go to live in a home with other old
people where there are nurses to look after them. Sometimes the government has
to pay for this care.
Who do you think should pay for this care, the government or the family?

Some elderly people are fortunate enough to have savings to pay for the costs involved,
but many others have to rely on either family members or the government. This situation
has ratcheted up public interest in who should be in charge of elderly people’s medical
expenses.

Admittedly, there are good reasons to say that the government should cover the medical
costs of elderly people. Chief of these is that since these people have given the
government tax all their lives, when they are old and infirm, it seems fair that their
healthcare costs are covered by state subsidies. This can be seen in Canada, where
elderly people are given free healthcare, and a monthly allowance to support themselves.
In addition, if the government does not pay, then the bill is left with the family and most
people simply cannot afford this on top of their normal bills. As a result, many old people
may not receive the medical care that they need and may consequently die because of
their family’s financial hardship.

However, there are stronger reasons to say that aged care costs must be met by senior
citizens or their relatives. The key reason is that if the government paid for their care, this
would put tremendous pressure on the national healthcare budget. As the government
would have to reallocate funds from other important areas to meet the costs incurred,
this would perhaps upset the equilibrium of the country’s economy. Furthermore, there
would surely be higher taxes imposed on working people to address the budget deficit.
This measure would penalize taxpayers and take away their motivation to work harder,
hence a greater shortage of tax dollars.

In conclusion, although it makes sense for the government to cover old people’s nursing
bills because of the contributions they make throughout their working life, this proposal
would be financially problematic and should not be adopted. However, there is, in my
opinion, an important caveat: childless elderly whose living relatives are unable to
or unwilling to take care of them should be entitled to free healthcare. This way,
the incurred costs would not affect the economy of the country, while those people
would be empowered to enjoy their retirement life without monetary worries.
(378 words)
Some people think that children should begin their formal education at a very early
age. Some think they should begin at least 7 years old. Discuss both views give
opinions.

In recent years, the question of when a child should start receiving formal schooling has
received a great deal of public attention. Although some champion the idea of children
starting school at a very young age, such a proposal would probably do more harm than
good.

Admittedly, there are reasons to say that giving six-year-olds and under formal
schooling is beneficial to them. Chief of these is that since young children’s ability to
learn is almost infinite, exploiting it early on can enhance their cognitive and intellectual
development. This may enable them to do better at school and perhaps be more
successful later in life. In addition, with every formal educational setting having certain
rules in place, children will learn to obey them and become more mature. This not only
eases the burden on parents but also helps young people foster important characters
early.

However, there are stronger reasons to argue that waiting until they are older is a more
sensible course of action. The key argument is that social skills, such as communication
ones, and the ability to recognize and appeal to others’ emotions, are repeatedly proven
to contribute more to the likelihood of one being successful. These skills are best
developed by letting young children spend their early years with their friends rather than
by forcing them to learn subjects like arithmetics or biology. Furthermore, one can
imagine how difficult it would be for a 5-year-old child to spend an hour every day
preparing for his lessons the next day or only doing his homework. Chances are that he
would fail to cope with the stress, resulting in him developing a negative attitude towards
studying.

In conclusion, I believe that not until the age of 7 should young children be taught
formally; if anything, it would potentially be counter-productive.

(301 words)
Some people believe that a gap year between school and university is a good idea,
while others disagree strongly. Consider both sides of this debate and present
your own opinion.

Of all the choices that a school leaver has to make, perhaps the most important is about
whether to take a gap year or to attend university education. Although there are several
problems associated with taking a break from education, I believe that this choice is
beneficial to high school graduates as long as the year is judiciously planned.

Admittedly, there are good reasons to say that taking a year off after high school
graduation is not a good idea. Chief of these is that in order to travel to somewhere
during their year off, they have to cover the costs in areas such as air fares,
accommodation and living expenses. This either presents their family with a financial
burden, or forces these school leavers to borrow money or to work while traveling. In
addition, since gap years take a young person’s focus away from studying, this can
make it hard to adjust to university life. This can be seen in the way many “gappers”
ended up not returning to university.

However, there are stronger reasons to say that it is better for school leavers to defer
pursuing higher education. The key reason is that after working or living on their own for
a while, young people’s independence and assertiveness can be bolstered. They will
have better time management and interpersonal skills, which will stand them in good
stead when they enter the workplace. Furthermore, attending higher education right
away may not be a wise choice because young people tend not to know what their
passions are. If they spend a year doing different kinds of work or traveling, they may
have a clearer idea of what they want to do in the future, helping them avoid wasting
time learning things that they may otherwise are not interested in.

In conclusion, I believe that a year off can indeed be a useful activity, with the experience
leading to improved skills that are invaluable in the future. Of course, this is provided
that the year is planned carefully and used for something genuinely worthwhile.
(332 words)
Over the last few years, school boards have increasingly utilized standardized
tests to measure their students’ performance. Many people believe these tests do
not accurately reflect most students’ academic abilities and should therefore be
stopped.
Do you agree with this belief?
What are some other ways students can be assessed for achievement?

Countless cases where bright, diligent students are flunked or fail to achieve the scores
they arguably deserve have led many to question the wholesomeness of standardized
testing. I wholeheartedly believe that this form of assessment is not fair and should be
replaced.

One might argue that standardized tests put everyone on an equal footing. This is
predicated on the assumption that these tests are designed to assess what school
children learned in class, and therefore, those who prepare well will do well. However,
this line of reasoning is not sound because it fails to factor people’s differences into the
equation. Some test takers simply cannot deal with stress well and consequently
succumb to anxiety, undermining their ability to think rationally and coherently. They, as
a result, score poorly, which by no means reflects their actual ability or intellect,
rendering standardized tests unfair.

There are other more acceptable forms of academic evaluation. For example, students
may be asked to complete a research essay, collaborate on a team project, or deliver a
speech to an audience. By allowing students to engage in forms of assessment that best
suit their characters, educators can enable them to showcase their actual abilities. This
helps young people develop as individuals and better prepares them for the real world,
where nothing is standard and merit is based on individual achievement.

In conclusion, boards of education must realize that individual students are diverse in
their characters and, consequently, in their strengths and weaknesses. They should,
therefore, be evaluated accordingly in order to accurately assess their academic
capabilities.
(264 words)
Some schools make all students wear uniforms, while other schools allow the
students to choose what they wear.
Which approach do you think is better for students’ overall development? Why?

Over the last decades, the adoption of uniforms has received a crescendo of both
criticism and support. Although allowing children to wear whatever they like can be
beneficial to a certain extent, I believe that it is in young people’s best interests that
uniforms should be mandatory.

Granted, one might argue that schools should allow children to dress as they please.
This is predicated on the assumption that by permitting children to dress freely, schools
can give them a taste of adult social reality where competition is often judged by
material standards. Such exposure is often argued to be a prelude of what awaits them
in modern society. However, this line of reasoning is not sound because it condones and
perpetuates unhealthy rivalry among people. There is more to life than having material
possessions, and this is unequivocally the attitude that schools should foster in children
instead of promoting social competition between them.

There are other reasons to extol the idea of making uniforms compulsory. The key
reason is that uniforms create an atmosphere of academic where students can stand out
not by the labels on their shirts, but by the scores they achieve on tests. In fact,
institutions requiring uniforms experience fewer incidents of bullying, and generally
boast superior overall academic performance. Furthermore, uniforms remind youngsters
of their top priority: their studies. This, coupled with the fact that many students take
pride in wearing their school uniform, will encourage them to study more earnestly,
further propelling overall academic gains.

In conclusion, for the reasons outlined above, it stands to reason that uniforms can
assist in forming a positive learning environment from which schoolchildren benefit
academically.
(275 words)
In order to study at university students are required to pay expensive tuition fees.
Not all students can afford them so some people think that university education
should be free for everyone.
To what extent do you agree?

The high costs involved in pursuing higher education have penalized a large section of
financially disadvantaged youngsters. This has heightened public interest in the topic of
providing free university education, with some claiming that such a scheme would pose
enormous challenges. My stance is that the financial gains from making tertiary
education free would recoup the expenses incurred many times over and that this
initiative would help narrow the income disparity.

Admittedly, there are reasons to reject the idea of giving free access to university
education for everyone. Chief of these is that in order to do so, the government has to
reallocate money from other important areas such as healthcare and infrastructure to
funding a free system. This can result in insufficient funds for these sectors and may
exacerbate many problems at hand. Furthermore, without having to pay money for their
schooling, many indolent school leavers may be tempted to continue their education to
avoid working, and some may only apply themselves half-heartedly because failing a
certain subject does not cost them anything. While the former scenario would result in a
waste of human resources, the latter means that the brought forth scheme would
unlikely be financially efficacious.

However, there are stronger reasons to believe that the government should make
university education accessible to everyone by getting rid of tuition. The key reason is
that since the provision of free education can engender a more well-educated workforce,
this can lead to higher productivity levels. This is often accompanied by sustainable
economic growth, which would at least compensate for the initial investment. Added to
this is the fact that waiving tuition fees will allow students of lower income brackets to
receive higher education, improving their employability. This perhaps will contribute to
bridging the income gap between social classes and removing inequality in our society.

In conclusion, although abolishing university fees could pose the question of

affordability and efficacy, it is an enlightened approach that could confer substantial
financial benefits and address serious social problems such as income inequality. (338
words)
Some people think that schools should reward students with the best academic
results, while others believe it is more important to reward students who show
improvements.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Schools have always tried to incentivize their students to study harder. Although this can
be achieved by rewarding students who excel in their studies, I believe that those who
make progress should also be rewarded.

Admittedly, there are justifiable reasons to believe that elite students should be
rewarded exclusively. Chief of these is that since they have diligently applied themselves
to their studies, they deserve the praises and privileges. This may encourage these
students and others to study harder to win the rewards, propelling overall academic
gains. Added to this is the fact that this kind of competition is seen in almost every
aspect of life where only the best individuals are rewarded. If students are used to this
reality and thrive in the face of fierce competition, this will enable them to achieve
success in later life.

However, there are more compelling reasons to say that schools should also reward
students who show improvements. The key reason is that only a few smart students can
come first and receive the rewards. This unequivocally causes others to think that their
effort is to no avail because they cannot surpass those outstanding individuals. As a
result, they are prone to feeling overwhelmed and disheartened and gradually lose the
incentive to study. Furthermore, emphasizing improvement not only encourages all
students to be diligent in their studies, but also helps students understand that they
need to constantly improve themselves, irrespective of how well they have been or are
performing. The constant desire to outdo themselves axiomatically benefits them more
than the competitive determination to win against all others.

In conclusion, even though it is arguably just to reward top students exclusively, schools
should do this in tandem with rewarding those who show signs of improvement. This
way, every student, those with best performance included, is motivated to exert
themselves harder.
(308 words)
Some people think that the main function of schools is to turn children into good
citizens and workers, rather than to benefit them as individuals.
Do you agree or disagree?

The role of schools has never been unanimously agreed upon, with politicians and
capitalists justifiably positing schools as factories producing productive members of
society and fruitful workers for industries. However, my stance is that students should
become the focal point of schooling.

Admittedly, there are justifiable reasons to believe that schooling is simply a vehicle for
the government to foster effective citizens and the nation’s workforce. Chief of these is
that since children are provided with necessary skills and knowledge, they are likely to
become productive workers. The corollary of improved productivity would be
sustainable economic growth. Added to this is the fact that equipping children with
sufficient understanding of what is expected of them in society is auspicious for creating
a law-abiding society. With society becoming safer and more prosperous, everyone can
enjoy an improved quality of life.

However, there are more compelling reasons to say that schools ought to benefit
children as individuals. The key reason is that by focusing on helping children grow and
nurturing their talent, the well-educated workforce, and the low rates of crime,
mentioned above, can also be achieved. At the same time, children are empowered to
develop into individual thinkers who can criticize and challenge the values and traditions
of society, and contemplate innovative ideas that can tackle existing and future
problems and change our lives for the better. Furthermore, if children are taught only
certain sets of beliefs and areas of knowledge to serve certain political or business
shenanigans, a form of indoctrination will ensue. This would lead to the loss of critical
thinking, which in turn would have stultifying effects on the progress of our society.

In conclusion, the main function of schools should be to educate young people as

individuals, rather than to turn them into fruitful citizens and workers.

(311 words)
Economic progress is one way to measure a country's success. Some people
believe that there are other factors that should be considered when measuring the
success of a country. What are the other factors? Do you think there is a factor
that is more important than the others?

Economic development is a common yardstick to measure a nation’s success, but there

are other important indicators such as education, crime, unemployment and poverty.
Deciding which factor is the most important should depend on the economic situation of
the country.

It would be inaccurate to measure a country’s success based solely on its economic

advancement. This is because many governments either overlook or condone pernicious
economic activities due to short-term financial incentives. For example, they may allow
large corporations to acquire farmers’ land to build factories, taking away these people’s
jobs and subsequently worsening the problem of unemployment. Similarly, many local
governments pay scant attention to education, poverty eradication and crime prevention,
all of which are key to economic sustainability. Therefore, a more multifaceted
measurement must be used to accurately tell how much a country has developed. This
means that besides making economic progress, a country is only thriving if there are
also low levels of illiteracy, crime, unemployment and poverty.

The decision to focus on developing one of the areas mentioned above is contingent
upon the country’s economy. As for underdeveloped and developing countries,
economic success is certainly their primary aim. Even though they are faced with
countless other problems like poverty, crime and illiteracy, only economic growth can
improve these areas. This can be seen in the way Vietnam invested heavily on the
tourism industry to propel its economy and used economic gains to eradicate literacy,
starvation and poverty later. However, developed countries must prioritize
environmental protection, crime prevention, and unemployment and poverty eradication
to improve the living standard of all citizens. For these countries, economic growth is
only secondary.

In conclusion, a range of factors should be taken into account when one measures the
success of a country. Deciding whether one factor is more important that the others
should be dependent on the economic status of the country.
`
A rise in the standard of living in a country often only seems to benefit cities rather
than rural areas. What problems might these differences cause? How might these
problems be reduced?

People residing in cities are enjoying a much higher level of living standard than those in
the countryside. This has incentivized so many people in rural areas to move to big cities
in search of a better life and created many problems for both cities and rural villages.
These problems can be mitigated by moving jobs to rural areas.

The yearning chasm between life in urban and rural areas has resulted in a mass
migration to cities, and its concomitant problems are easily seen. Chief of these is that
many immigrants cannot find employment in cities and have to live in dilapidated
housing, which is even worse than theirs in the countryside. Unemployment is often
accompanied by rises in crime rates, undermining of all city residents. In addition, as
young people leave town to find jobs in cities, villages are left with only old people and
children, hindering the economic development of these towns.

The government could address the root cause of these problems by making rural areas
more attractive. The first step is to encourage companies to relocate to rural towns
because this would create jobs in these places, motivating local people to stay and
underemployed and unemployed people to move back from cities. However, companies
would be reluctant to move their factories to the countryside due to the lack of
infrastructure and skilled workers. Thus, the government would need to invest in roads
and education to facilitate such relocation, and perhaps tax cuts should be offered to
manufacturers who agreed to move their plants to smaller towns.

In conclusion, the huge gap between the living standard in cities and rural areas has led
to an exodus to cities, which is creating social problems for city dwellers and negatively
affecting rural economies. These issues can be alleviated by moving industries to rural
towns.
More and more people want to own famous brands of cars, clothes and other
items. What are the reasons for this? Is this a negative or positive trend?

People’s wishes to project their wealth could be seen throughout the recorded history,
and such desires are being exploited by marketers to encourage people to buy more
expensive items. Although this development confers economic benefits, it is detrimental
on an individual level.

From a psychological standpoint, humans are naturally drawn to doing things that make
them feel ‘important’. Owning more extravagant products is certainly a manifestation of
this predisposition, as seen in the way one owning an expensive car often receives
praises from his friends and neighbors. To make matters worse, companies do know
how to use this to their advantage, for example by showing how happy a person with a
Roll Royce or a Gucci handbag appears to be. People who are regularly exposed to
such a message often associate their ‘importance’ with owning more fancy items.

As more people aspire to buy expensive products, the economy is certain to grow.
However, this does not necessarily benefit individuals. They may have to budget for a
long time and spend all of their savings on a large purchase, leaving them vulnerable to
economic turmoil. Furthermore, if more people own a certain product, it will lose its
value, incentivizing people to buy even more expensive items to earn other people’s
respect and ultimately to feel ‘important’. This blind pursuit negatively affects the
person’s self-esteem because there is always more expensive items to buy and
wealthier people to impress.

In conclusion, people increasingly want to buy more expensive products because this
helps them feel ‘important’ and marketers are also effectively exploiting this desire. This
phenomenon can certainly lead to economic growth, but it undermines people’s
self-esteem and leaves them vulnerable to economic turbulence. (299 words)
In recent years, tourists have paid attention to preserving both the culture and
environment of the places they visit. However, some people think that it is
impossible to be a responsible tourist. To what extent do you agree or
disagree with this opinion?

It is true that a large number of holidaymakers show little to no regard to the culture and
local environment of the destinations they visit. This has led some to condemn these
tourists for their blatantly irresponsible behaviors, but in their defense, some visitors say
that it is impossible to act responsibly when they travel. I believe that it is in our ability to
protect the local culture and environment.

Granted, one might argue that it is simply not possible to be responsible tourists. This is
predicated on the assumption that they have their own way of life and have the rights to
practice their own religions and beliefs when they visit a place. Forcing them to ‘preserve’
the local culture, thus, might curtail their individual freedom. However, this line of
reasoning is not sound because it is simply common courtesy to respect the traditions
and customs of the native people. For example, tourists have regularly been found to
curse or wear inappropriately short clothes in sacred places such as temples or pagodas,
and such disrespectful behaviors or habits are not ‘impossible’ to avoid.

Furthermore, many tourist destinations have been disfigured by visitors, and there is
simply no justification for their actions. Instead of dumping trash wherever they go, they
can hold on to it until they find a trash can; instead of cutting tree branches to make
tents or fuel their bond fires, they can bring their own tents and coals; instead of trying to
touch a certain ancient artifact, which is incredibly susceptible to breakage, they can
admire it with their bare eye or by taking a picture of it. It is an unacceptable excuse for
tourists to say that protecting the environment of the places they visit is implausible.

In conclusion, it is not beyond the purview of their ability to both have fun and protect
the local environment and culture in places where they travel to. (325 words)
Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and
to test the safety of other products. Some people argue that these experiments
should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while
others are in favor of them because of their benefits to humanity. Discuss
both views and give your own opinion

Some hold a humancentric belief, saying that non-human animals only exist for the
benefit of mankind, hence the justification for the use of animals in scientific
studies. Animal rights activists, on the other hand, often try to ‘proselytize’ people
to stop subjecting animals to pain and suffering in the name of ‘good’ for
humankind. I personally think that animal experimentation is a necessary evil, but it
should be strictly regulated.

On the one hand, animal rights advocates justifiably posit animals’ capability to
feel pain as their core argument. Many animals have sophisticated and developed
brain, which allows them to experience pain to the degree that is similar to humans’.
This can be seen in the case of primates or dogs - whose screams and howls are
hauntingly deafening - when being subjected to pain in scientific experiments. It is
indisputably wrong to force a human being to undergo such pain, so people’s
concern for the animals used in those research is readily understandable.

However, completely prohibiting the use of animals in scientific research would be

unwise. Regardless of how advanced medical technologies are, they cannot
reconstruct or replicate animal cells to cater for certain research. Thus, to develop
new medicines and treatments, animal experimentation is only unavoidable in those
cases. Furthermore, people who lobby against the use of animals would probably
feel differently if they themselves or their family members were cured by a medicine
developed by using animals. For example, diabetes sufferers cannot live healthily
without Insulin, which was developed by experimenting on dogs.

In conclusion, most animals can indeed feel pain to a certain degree, so causing
them to experience unnecessary suffering is unacceptable. However, I believe that
the development of important medicines sanctifies the suffering caused for animals.
There are still several important caveats: unnecessary experiments using animals
must not be carried out if they have been done before or do not facilitate medical
advancement; and scientists have to try to find ways to minimize the amount of pain
animals have to go through. (346 words)
Some people believe that women should play an equal role as men in a
country’s police force or military force, while others think women are not
suitable for these kinds of jobs. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It is observed that the vast majority of personnel serving in law enforcement units
and in the army - who often have to encounter dangerous situations - are men.
Some point to women’s inferior physical strengths as the justification for their low
participation levels in these lines of work, and I agree.

Granted, given the increasing popularity of gender equality, many are proposing
that more women should enlist in the army too. This proposal is predicated on the
observation that most of the people who died enforcing laws or protecting their
country are men. This is believed to be diametrically opposite to the idea of
‘equality’, espoused by the women’s rights movement. In order to reestablish the
sense of equality, the a priori argument is that women should not be excluded from
such duties to their country.

However, this line of reasoning is not sound because women are generally not as
physically strong as their male counterparts. This very advantage of men over
women could make a pronounced difference in battles, especially in hand-to-hand
combats. The results could be dire: due to her physical limitations, a female officer is
much more likely to fail to arrest a violent offender, putting herself and many others
in danger.

In conclusion, asking more women to enter the police or military force would mean
that physically unqualified females would be enlisted. This could lead to
consequential repercussions: otherwise preventable deaths, and failed missions.
Therefore, only a few women at the very end of the physical strength spectrum who
wish to serve the country should be allowed to work in these professions. (275
words)