khơi dậy, bồi đắp, giúp

thức tỉnh, ươm mầm, vun đắp, góp phần

cá nhân -cộng đồng

.Part 3. Essay writing (35 pts)

It is more important for schoolchildren to learn about local history than world history.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

A school of thought holds that students should learn exclusively about national history,
instead of the world. I completely disagree with this view for the reasons outlined below.
Granted, one might argue that learning the history of other societies in the world is
unnecessary. This is predicated on the assumption that learning about historic events that
took place in students’ communities will foster a sense of patriotism and an appreciation for
their own national heritages, allowing them to be aware of their roots. These things can not
be gained if students study the history of the world. However this line of reasoning is not
sound because learning only about the history of their own country may make students have
a biased attitude towards everything happening around the world. They may harbor hostile
feelings about foreign people. Take, Vietnamese education, for example, mostly features
how Vietnam fought against foreign armies such as America or French, misleading them into
thinking that people from these countries are bad.
Therefore, I am convinced that it is far more beneficial for young children to learn local
history in parallel with world history. This is because acquiring insights into events that took
place in other parts of the world can also give children a more holistic perspective of what
happened in their localities. In addition, only by having a good command of foreign countries’
history, may young citizens find it easier to respect cultural differences, which is key to
mutual understanding and cooperation among nations. Therefore, it is sensible that schools
should incorporate world history in their curriculum.
In conclusion, the notion that national history should be prioritized is flawed, and I would
argue that learning world history offers far greater benefits to schoolchildren.

TASK 2: Some people believe that everyone has a right to have access to
University education and that the government should make it free-for-all
students no matter what financial background they have. To what extent do
you agree or disagree?
There is no denying that tuition fees have been inexorably increasing in recent
years. Therefore, it is argued that the government should wholly subsidize
tertiary education, regardless of students’ family and social background. While
this thinking is valid to some extent, I am of the opinion that this
free-of-charge policy should not be put into practice.
Of course, one might argue that students should be given the chance to pursue
college without fee. This is predicated on the assumption that doing so can
help students, especially the underprivileged, stand a chance of landing a
high-paid job and bettering their lives in the future. Since many companies
tend to favor applicants having paper qualifications over those who have no
formal education. However this line of reasoning is sound because it fails to
factor in the affordability of the government to cover such fees. The cost to
make university free of charge is colossal, thus putting a strain on government
coffers which leads to budget deficits, tax hikes or reduced welfare among
others.
Another pronounced drawback is that tuition exemption could do students a
disservice. This has something to do with the fact that ,as today most students
have to pay for their own tuition fees, they are inclined to study in earnest and
apply themself to getting good grades. Therefore, were this financial burden to
be eased, students would lose the drive to work hard and neglect their studies.
For example, they may skip classes or miss exams because they feel that
failing does not cost them anything. These behaviors could take a heavy toll
on their academic performance at school, resulting in the loss of money
invested into the policy.
In conclusion, I believe that the government should not exempt tuition fees
because it could have an adverse bearing on both the society and students.

TASK 2: Online classes make conventional classrooms unnecessary. To what

extent do you agree or disagree?
It is said that the advent of virtual learning has rendered traditional
classrooms redundant. I completely agree with this statement for several
following reasons.
There are many good reasons to say that web-based learning can replace
learning face-to-face. Chief among these is that while the tuition fees these
days has been inexorably increasing, learning on the Internet is extremely
cost-efficient. Online classes effectively dispense with numerous expenses
that running a brick-and-mortar operation may incur such as space, electricity,
administrative staff and among others. This allows online course providers to
offer them at a price point that is accessible to the masses, even the
underprivileged. In addition, web-based classes help learners to overcome
time constraints and geographical boundaries which is particularly helpful for
those who are living in rural and remote areas where schools and teachers are
sorely lacking. And they can learn at their own pace, which means they may
not be subjected to great pressure as studying in physical classes.
Granted, one might argue that online learning can widen the gap between the
rich and the poor, since many students coming from humble backgrounds
cannot afford electronic devices. However, this line of reasoning is not sound
because, these days, such things are no longer considered to be a privilege. As
they are mass-produced and offered at a cheap price that almost everyone can
buy. Also, a school of thought may hold that virtual learning cannot two-way
interaction. Consequently, students cannot ask teachers or their friends about
the problems that they do not wholly understand. I believe this thinking is
flawed because online providers usually create a group social account such as
Messenger or Zalo from which we can ask others.
In conclusion, there is no denying that students studying on the Internet can
encounter some difficulties, though, all of them can be addressed easily.
Therefore I am still of the opinion that traditional classrooms can be
expendable given the convenience and cost effectiveness that virtual learning
offers to us.

Some feel that schools should be mixed with both girls and boys
attending. Others feel the genders ought to be separated.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It would be argued by some that students should enter mixed-sex

schools. Others, however, believe that it would be more beneficial for
them to attend single-gender education. Admittedly, there are some
merits of single-sex schools, I am still of the view with the former
statement for several following reasons

Of course, one might argue that it is beneficial for children to attend

single-sex education. This is predicated on the assumption that students
would concentrate all their efforts on studying, apply themself to get
good marks. This has something to do with the fact that they do not have
to worry about their appearances to impress their opposite-gender
classmates and there is also no likelihood for early relationships.
Therefore, students attending in such schools would have better
academic scores.
However, I am still of the opinion that co-ed schools are significantly
better than single-gender schools. Should students enter mixed-sex
schools, they will have the chance to communicate and interact
effectively with their classmates of the opposite sex, which in turn enable
them to foster their collaborative and cooperative skills. For this reason,
they would stand a chance of landing a high paid job in the future. Since
firms are looking beyond the technical expertise and paper qualifications
of applicants and attach greater importance to attributes like
adaptability, collaborative skills, and among others.

In conclusion, while there is no denying the benefits of going into

separated-sex schools, I still hold the opinion that mixed-gender
education is much better, given its enhancement of job prospects for
students.

Some people think that children under 18 years old should receive full-time
education. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is hard to overstate the importance of schooling: it decides what kind of

person we become, what kind of career we will have and ultimately what kind
of life we will lead. Therefore education has always been a topic of interest. A
school of thought holds that students under 18 years should be required to
attend full time classes. While there is no denying some drawbacks of this
view, I am still of the opinion that full-time education should be made
obligatory.

Of course, one might argue that students under the age of 18 do not have to
receive full time formal schooling, especially those who are living in
underdeveloped countries. This is predicated on the assumption that these
children barely have foods or drinks to consume, let alone paying a
substantial amount of money to go to school. However this line of reasoning
is not sound because the only way to break the cycle of poverty is through
learning. With regard to tuition fees, I consider it is the responsibility of the
government to make provision for the formal learning of young citizens. They
should allot more money on education because every resident should be given
the right to go to school.
There are numerous compelling reasons to say that full-time education is
necessary for people under 18 years old. Chief of these is that on the
individual level, it can reduce the rate of juvenile delinquency. This is simply
because given the chance to go to school full-time, students would likely to go
on the right track, stay away from drugs, alcohol, tobacco, harassment,
premarital sex, guns and violences. Granted, critics charged that
home-schooled children can still be guided by their parents. However, parents
are inclined to be very busy and cannot supervise or check up on them
regularly. In addition, a surge in the gross enrollment rate, prompted by
obligation to attend full-time classes, would give rise to a more educated
workforce. This acts as a precursor not only for a thriving economy but also a
civilized society.

In addition, I hold the opinion that it should be obligatory for children under
the age of 18 to receive full-time education.

Some people think that a huge amount of time and money is spent on
protection of wild animals, and that this money could be better spent on the
human population. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Due to humankind’s relentless pursuit of economic growth, a wide range of
animals are on the verge of extinction. A school of thought holds that the
money spent on preserving these animals should be directed to humans,
given the colossal cost and time incurred. While this thinking is somewhat
justifiable, conservation programs are a matter of life-and-death for human
beings.
It is understandable why some people subscribe to the view that too much
time and money is invested in wildlife preservation. Advocates may argue that
there are more pressing issues that we should address. A case in point is that
many developing countries are fraught with poverty, a health crisis, crime and
illiteracy, resulting in millions of people living on the breadline and can hardly
cover their basic needs. And they are in dire need of funding to remedy such
issues. Therefore, compared to these urgent needs, combatting the demise of
threatened species seems like an unworthy cause.
However, notwithstanding the fact that there are numerous indeed serious
issues that we need to pay attention to. It would be absurd to downplay the
importance of protecting endangered species. This is because humans have
an inextricable relationship with wildlife. In other words, even if a single wild
creature is missing from the ecosystem, it would disrupt the whole food chain,
ultimately leading to disastrous impact on human lives. For instance, A decline
in the number of bumble bees has resulted in the total crop failure in many
parts of the world, which in turn drives many people to the verge of dying for
not having anything to eat. This is a testament to the idea that we should not
ignore the unshaken_> UNDENIABLE importance of natural species.
In conclusion, while there are still many alarming problems that should be
handled, wildlife conservation projects cannot be ignored.

Some people think that the world should have one government rather than national
governments. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

BRAINSTORM
ADVanTaGE:-One government system would potentially foster global unity and
cooperation. There would be little likelihood for long-lasting war and terrorism-
be more effective at handle climate change and pollution.-work toward a
common goal
-many people are living on the breadline, and do not have enough money to
fend for themselves and their family. one world government system could
address such problem because the government would have to take care of all
citizen - these poor people would be given more welfare
-it would be an uphill struggle to govern the whole world, catering for different
needs, religions and interests. there may be conflict between different
religions
-the loss of cultural identities due to assimilation and homogenization
-the likelihood of corruption, inflation because the power goes to the hands of
a few

1. explain some of the ways in which humans are damaging the

environment. What can the government do to address these problems?
What can individual people do?
2. It is true that economic prosperity, which humans have enjoyed lately,
has come at the expense of the environment. This essay will
demonstrate some ways in which humans are devastating the
environment before outlining a number of viable solutions to mitigate
the situation.
It is evident that the natural environment is being wrecked by human
activities. Chief of these is due to advanced technology, which allows
many products that used to be very expensive to be mass-produced.
They are sold at a price point that is accessible to the masses-leading to
a throwaway society.Fo example clothes in the past people only bought
 2 or three pairs of clothes each year, but these days many people tend
to buy clothes on a daily basis. Many of these are eventually ending up
in landfills without being worn. Finally, the discarded clothes take
hundreds of years to decompose and during this period it gives off
methane and carbon dioxide which are very detrimental and even fatal
to humans and animals surrounding it. On top of that, the use of
carbon-intensive energy is also to blame. With the aim of catering for
human’s need. We are exploiting fossil fuels at an alarming rate to fuel
industrial factories and vehicles. These activities discharge massive
exhaust emissions into the atmosphere, rendering the atmosphere in
major cities alarmingly contaminated. Many people are suffering from
respiratory diseases such as asthma
Several feasible solutions can be implemented to remedy the
aforementioned above. The government should allocate more funding to
green technology, which is key to lowering the reliance on
carbon-intensive sources. For example, they should encourage the use
of renewable energy such as wind, solar energy and hybrid vehicles in
order to cut down on the consumption of fossil fuels, and thus reducing
the volume of toxic exhaust fumes. In addition, campaigns that raise
public awareness about environmental degradation should be
intensified. Once people are fully aware of the dire state of the
environment and its repercussions, they would adopt a more
sustainable lifestyle such as buying fewer clothes and after wearing
them give them to those who are in need.
In conclusion, unbridled consumption of conventional energy and
consumer goods are the primary culprits behind major environmental
issues, and it is important that the proposed solutions be universally
employed to protect the planet

Fossil fuel is the main source of energy. In some countries, the use of
alternative sources of energy is encouraged. Is this a positive or
negative development
It is true that the world's energy mainly relies on fossil fuel. In some
nations, the use of carbon-free energy is incentivised. While there are
some negative aspects of this trend, I am still of the opinion that
sustainable energy source should be encourage
— the consumption of fossil fuels→ catastrophically exacerbates air pollution,
taking a heavy toll on human health. Many people have been suffering from
respiratory diseases such as asthma and among others→ harmful. The danger
of renewable energy pales in comparison with conventional energy sources.
Even nuclear energy- the source that most pep
-alternative energy source is prohibitively expensive and requires advanced
technologies. Many developing countries in Africa or Asia would not have
enough funding to employ sustainable energy such as wind energy or
hydropower. However, this problem can be addressed when developed
countries provide the poorer ones with technology . In fact, the cost of
renewable energy has substantially decreased compared to the past
-it is believed that green energy is not safe, especially nuclear energy. Many
are afraid of nuclear waste or nuclear explosion. However, researchers have
pointed out that the deaths resulting from such events pale in comparison with
the death toll resulting from the use of fossil fuel. GIven the fact that fossil fuel
consumption has rendered the atmosphere in many parts of the world heavily
polluted. This has taken a heavy toll on numerous people. Many have been
suffering from respiratory diseases or cardiovascular diseases. Sustainable
energy would help to remedy these problems because they do not exhaust
massive amounts of carbon dioxide like fossil fuel.In addition, wind energy,
solar energy or hydropower are limitless, which means we can use it to our
content. Unlike conventional energy sources.

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

responsibility. Others believe that every individual should be responsible for it.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
It is said that the government should take responsibility for environmental
conservation. Other people, however, think that every citizen should be held
accountable for it. In this essay, I would shed light on both views and present
my opinion.
On the one hand, it is true that only the government has the authority to bring
in environmental law that residents have to comply with. The legislation they
implemented would help to curb the problem of environmental degradation.
For example, in Vietnam, dilapidated vehicles must not be used on the road
because they often cause a massive amount of carbon dioxide and offenders
will be fined at least $1000. Thanks to this law many people opt for greener
vehicles or those who do not have enough to buy such vehicles are forced to
commute by public transportation.
On the other hand, while the participation of the government plays an
indispensable role in reversing the damage done to the planet, it would be
absurd to downplay the contribution of every single person. People can make
a huge difference with simple changes in their lifestyle such as taking public
transport or classifying trash. Another way in which individuals can help
protect the environment is through their consumption. Patronizing stores that
champion sustainable business practices, boycotting companies that are
reluctant to reduce waste are practical steps that consumers can take to push
for a greener future.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that alleviating environmental problems
requires collective efforts from both the government and citizens. (
environmental conservation is a colossal responsibility that must be borne by
both the state and the people)
People in many countries are spending less quality time with their family. What
are the reasons and effects of this?
It is true that quality family time is on the decline for numerous households in
the world. This tendency can be attributed to a host of reasons, and in this
essay, I am going to prove that it would have a negative impact on both family
(->families) and society.
There are two underlying reasons as to why people are spending less time
with their family than they used to in the past. First and foremost, with the
advent of the Internet and technological advances, individuals tend to sacrifice
their time with their loved ones in order to engage in screen-time activities. For
example, many Vietnamese families, instead of talking with other people or
taking part in outdoor activities, they just immerse themself(
themselves)(->they become deeply engrossed)in the virtual world. This behavior
could cut into their time they spend with family. Another reason worth
mentioning is that people are too busy with their work to squeeze in any time
being with their family into their schedules( people are too busy with their work to
squeeze in any time with their family. Or even if they have time(,) they just do( may)
not have enough energy to make time for their family.
I would contend that the growing trend towards reduced family time has
serious repercussions not only on the family but also on society. Regarding
the former, the absence of family time could further widen the gap between
family members, resulting in misunderstandings in the family and potential
conflicts, even divorces in worst-case scenarios. With respect to the latter, the
deterioration of family ties could contribute to(several) social problems. This
is because children whose parents spend most of their time working are likely
to be neglected and lack parental support. This can negatively affect children’s
long term mental health and put them at a higher risk of being led
astray(children are more likely to engage in risky behavior or delinquency.").and are
susceptible to antisocial behavior disorders(, which is a precursor to
increased violence and crime.)(This can negatively affect children’s long-term mental
health and put them at a higher risk of engaging in antisocial behavior. Such behavior is a
precursor to increased violence and crime.)
In conclusion, the heavy use of technological gadgets and hectic schedule are
main culprits leading to the lack of family time, and I am convinced that this
tendency has a number of negative implications for family and society.

Here are some synonyms for the phrase "have children late":

​ Delayed childbirth
​ Postponed parenting
​ Late parenthood
 ​ Deferred childbearing
​ Having children at an advanced age
​ Starting a family later in life
​ Parenting at a later stage
​ Becoming parents in later years
​ Having kids at a later age
​ Starting a family in later stages of life

Note that while these synonyms convey a similar meaning, the context and tone may vary slightly.

Nowadays, more and more people decide to have children later

in their life. What are the reasons? Is this is a positive or
negative trend
sp
Here are some synonyms for the phrase "secure finance":

​ Ensure financial stability

​ Attain financial security
​ Achieve financial stability
​ Obtain financial assurance
​ Establish solid financial footing
​ Garner financial safety
​ Acquire financial certainty
​ Secure economic well-being
​ Establish a firm financial foundation
​ Attain monetary security
​ Here are some synonyms for "incur lots of responsibility":
​ Assume a heavy burden of responsibility
​ Undertake a substantial amount of responsibility
​ Shoulder a significant level of responsibility
​ Take on a considerable amount of responsibility
​ Bear a substantial weight of responsibility
​ Accept a considerable degree of responsibility
​ Be saddled with a significant amount of responsibility
​ Carry a heavy load of responsibility
​ Be entrusted with a substantial level of responsibility
​ Assume a great deal of responsibility
​

reasons: want to wholly focus on career and self growth in order to have a
secure finance in the future
-childcare expenses are inexorably increasing. Some people living on the
breadline cannot earn enough money to meet their needs let alone bring up a
child.
Positive:
 It is widely believed that deferring child bearing can pose several potential
health hazards for both mother and a child such as miscarriage. However with
the advance of technology, doctors can find genetic defects in mother and
remove them, allowing parents to have healthy children
-Those who become parents in later years are likely to establish a firm
financial foundation, which in turn, enables them to make all conditions for the
well-being of their children.
In addition, being at an advanced age can make them more experienced in
educating their children.
In our modern society, there has been an ongoing trend towards late
parenthood. From my perspective, this development can be attributed to
several reasons, and I strongly believe that the demerits of this trend outweigh
its demerits.
There are several underlying reasons as to why people have a tendency to
have children at an advanced age. Chief of these is that they want to
exclusively focus on their career in order to ensure financial stability before
having children. This is because they believe they cannot juggle their jobs,
their children’s needs and their housework. Additionally, it is worth noting that
these days child care expenses are inexorably increasing, putting a heavy
burden on individuals having infants. To illustrate, people living on the
breadline cannot meet their needs let alone raise a baby.
I am of the opinion that the advantageous effects of this issue definitely
overshadow its drawback. Notwithstanding the potential health problems of
deferring childbearing, even death, suffered by both the mother and babies,
these health hazards can be mitigated by recent leaps in the medical field. In
addition,those who become parents in later years are likely to establish a firm
financial foundation, which in turn, enables them to make all conditions for the
well-being of their children, including high-quality education and better health
services. Furthermore, being at an advanced age can make them more
experienced in educating their children properly and guiding them in the right
track, while young couples tend to have bad parenting skills, which can have
an adverse bearing on the development of children.
In conclusion, the pursuit of a career path and escalating childcare costs are
two driving factors behind postponed parenthood among modern citizens, and
I strongly believe this is a positive trend.

Parents often give children everything they ask for

and let them do what they like. Is it good for
children? What are the consequences when they
grow up?
Spoiled and cosseted children
—Over-indulgence
-accommodate children’s every demand
-fulfill all of their wishes
-grant every request
pamper
—> lead to spoiled and cosseted children- these children are likely to be
credulous→ easily led astray and go the wrong path, engage in antisocial
activities, crime and theft→ destroy their lives
exhibit bad manners-do not look up to clothes, despise the less privileged than
them-be arrogant– think that everyone all have duty to meet their expectations→
do not gain the respect from other people and not have a good relationship with
good friends, be left out, keep them at a distance
→ under the impression that they have everything they want, do not need to
study- lose the drive to work hard, be indifferent to their studies. This not only
severely affects their academic performances but also has an adverse bearing on
themselves. Through the process of learning they can cultivate and enhance many
positive characteristic traits and skills such as perseverance, determination,
independence, problem solving, or critical thinking. Therefore these spoiled
children would hardly succeed in the future and find it difficult to integrate
themself into the society.

Many museums and historical sites are mainly visited by

tourists but not local people? Why is this the case ? What can
be done to attract more local people to these museums?
There is no denying that mainly tourists visit historical attractions such as
museums and monuments but not locals. This essay will look at several primary
causes of this and offer some feasible solutions to the problems.
There are a number of reasons for the poor number of indigenous people visiting
historical sites in their area. The key rationale is that such places are no longer
strange to them, they are familiar with those places. This has something to do
with the fact that these places are always the same, there has been no change
made to them, which results in little attraction to the locals. By contrast, visitors
are inclined to be curious and want to explore exotic locales to know more about
their destinations’ cultures and history. In addition, they only rarely visit these
places or only go there once. Therefore, it is clear why mainly travelers visit such
museums and historical places.
There are some actions that could be taken to tackle the problems mentioned
above. Firstly, it is important for the government to put more funding into
refurbishing poor-conditioned historical sites and adding new elements in them
with a view to capturing locals’ interests. Another solution can be implemented is
raising people’s awareness of important heritages through social media
platforms, because these sites can instill a sense of patriotism and help them to be
aware of their roots.
In conclusion, I believe historical sites are poorly visited by locals, given no
changes made to these sites, and lack of funding to modernize these places.
Proposed solutions can be employed to reverse the trend.

Some people think that the government should spend more money on
public service rather than waste money on arts (i.e. music and
painting). To what extent do you agree or disagree?
I agree with this view.
A school of thought holds that spending money on arts is a waste of
money, instead the government should allocate more funding in public
services such as hospitals and schools. I completely agree with this
view.
Granted, one might argue that arts can be therapeutic and help people
to temporarily forget about their worries and concerns from their
daily lives, thus the government should invest in this category for the
sake of citizens’ mental health. However, this line of reasoning is not
sound because it fails to factor in the colossal money that the
government should pay for these entertaining activities. Added to this
is the fact that individuals can still decompress and relax by taking
part in several outdoor activities such as taking a leisurely stroll
around the lake or going to the park to have a chance of living close to
nature, which cost very little.
Furthermore, there are numerous pressing issues that the government
has to address. Chief of these is that many public transportation and
facilities are in a dilapidated state and can no longer accommodate
inhabitants’ needs. For example, many hospitals in Vietnam are sorely
lacking funding to modernize their facilities and pay for employees,
leading to shortages of doctors and nurses. Additionally, children in
some remote areas also do not have the opportunity to go to schools,
instead are forced to work to provide food for their families.
Therefore, it is evident that the government should allocate more
money in public services, especially hospitals and schools with a view
to raise people’s living standards.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that instead of spending money on
arts, the government should spend these colossal amounts of money on
public services to improve the quality of life of people.

Some people say that we do not need printed newspapers anymore. To

what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
printed newspaper= conventional/traditional newspapers=printed
version/printed papers=paper publication=paper news=printed
materials
=e-paper=internet-based newspaper=digital version
totally agree
It is true that the number of people reading paper publications has
been on the decline in recent years. Some believe that these
conventional newspapers should be removed. I strongly agree with this
thinking.
Granted, one might argue that printed papers are still necessary. This
is predicated on the assumption that given many individuals are living
on the breadline, do not have enough money to afford a smartphone,
therefore they still rely on printed materials to be kept informed.
However, this line of reasoning is not sound because today digital
devices are mass-produced, which means they are very accessible and
can be bought at low cost and digital versions are free. In addition, the
newspaper industry contributes largely to deforestation, leading to
increased risk of wildfires or habitat loss. These could have
far-reaching impacts on the planet’s ability to sustain life,
consequently affect human beings.
Added to this is the fact that news online can attract many young
people, which in turn, enables them to develop an appreciation for
reading. This has something to do with the fact that while reading
conventional newspapers takes time and effort, digital versions are
convenient and accessible to the masses. We can keep abreast of all the
latest information at the click of a button only with a smartphone
connected to the Internet. In fact, in Vietnam, even the old no longer
read printed newspapers, therefore newsstands are a rare sight.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that traditional newspapers should
be discarded because of their impacts on the environment and the
accessibility of internet-based versions.
Nowadays, there is a trend that reports in the media focus on
problems and emergencies rather than positive development. Some
people think it is harmful to individuals and to society. To what extent
do you agree or disagree?
có thể đúng bởi→ tin xấu khiến con người sợ hãi- affect mental health
in the long term. Some people can harbor hatred feelings towards
other people because they don't believe in the goodness of humans→
lead to a deeply divided society. However this line of reasoning is not
sound because bad news can be a wake-up call to protect people from
imminent dangers. For example, being aware of the dangers of Covid
19 helps people to do their best to protect themself and their family
and obey regulations, protecting their health. In addition, negative
news does not separate people but can even foster a sense of
camaraderie and trust. A case in point is that last year when a storm
hit the northern part of Vietnam, many people went to great lengths to
help those who are in need.

It is true that reports in the media revolve around shocking and

negative news. A school of thought believes that this tendency is
detrimental to people and society as a whole. Although this negative
news can affect people’s health and society, it can go along ways
towards improving people’s lives.
Admittedly, there are good reasons to say that exposure to bad news
can do individuals and the society a disservice. The key reason is that
individuals can be subjected to stress due to negative reports, which in
the long term can negatively affect their mental health. For example,
reading newspapers about the state of climate change, pollution can
make people stressed out and pessimistic, which in serious cases could
result in depression, whereas being exposed to the news related to
murders and burglars, individuals can lose the faith in the goodness of
people. This consequently may lead to a deeply divided society.
However, there are stronger reasons to believe that negative news is
not completely bad. Chief of these is that negative news can be a
wake-up call to protect people from imminent dangers. For example,
being aware of the dangers of Covid 19 could people obey restriction
regulations. Had it not been for social media platforms providing such
news, individuals would not have kept abreast of the latest
information about how to ward off Covid 19. In addition, negative
news does not separate people but even foster a sense of camaraderie
and trust among them. A case in point is that last year when a storm
hit the northern part of Vietnam, many people were kept informed of
this and went to great lengths to help those who are in need.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that bad news has both pros and
cons.
in the internet.

Advertising is becoming more and more common in everyday life. Is it

a positive or negative development?
It is true that
Advertising/advertisements
=promotion/commercial break/advertorial spread/incessant
promotional campaign
The growing popularity of advertising
=(advertisements) become visible almost everywhere
=(advertisements) appear with increasing frequency
=be routinely exposed to advertisements
=permeate=the omnipresence of advertising
=the ubiquity of advertising
These days, due to the competitive market, companies tend to increasingly splash out
on promotional campaigns in order to stand out from other rivals. In my opinion, the
ubiquity of advertising is a negative development.
There are several drawbacks of advertising. Chief of these is that it is disrupting,
advertisements can pop up everywhere, whether we are watching television or reading
internet-based newspapers. This has a negative bearing on our experiences, making us
distracted, irritated and frustrated. In addition, beautiful individuals tend to endorse a
plethora of products. These people are considered to be role models of beauty, which
imperceptibly creates pressure on viewers, leading them to feel insecure about
themselves. Individuals are likely to be subjected to great stress because they have to
follow the so-called “beauty”, which in serious cases can result in depression.
Moreover, some ads are misleading and tend to be blown out of proportion, tricking
people into buying their products. This could cause waste of money and even result in
deaths. For example, Youtube contains several ads about medical stuff, some ads
encourage patients to give up their treatments at hospitals or use medicines prescribed
by doctors instead, buying their home remedies which are claimed to have magical
impact on people's health. Several people missed “golden hours” to treat their illness,
and consequently, lost their life because of being deceived by these advertisements.
In conclusion, I believe that the omnipresence of advertising has numerous negative
influences for individuals. Furthermore, some advertisements containing unsuitable
images such as sex and environment can be detrimental to children. This is because
teenagers are characterized as being gullible and are highly susceptible to what they
see. Therefore, seeing such advertisements may incite them to juvenile delinquency.
In conclusion, I believe that the omnipresence of advertising has numerous negative
influences for individuals.

SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE WHAT CHILDREN WATCH ON TV

INFLUENCES THEIR BEHAVIOR. SOME SAY IT IS THE
AMOUNT OF TIME WATCHING TELEVISION THAT
INFLUENCES THEIR BEHAVIOR.
It is widely known that watching TV has a profound impact on
children’s behavioral development. However, people remain divided
over whether it is the content or the duration over which children sit
in front of the television that affects their behavior. In this essay, I will
shed light on both views, though I believe children’s behavior are
influenced by the content they see rather than the amount of time they
spend on watching television.
On the one hand, it is true that screen time can have a negative effect
on children. The insurmountable time they spend on watching TV
may negatively affect their attitude towards a healthy lifestyle, thus
when they are adults, they are likely to lead a sedentary life. This is
because this bad habit will be ingrained in their mind, and very hard
to break even when they are mature, which in turn could affect their
mental and physical health in the long term.
On the other hand, I think that what children see on TV would bring
more significant influences for them. Firstly, unsuitable contents on
TV such as violence and sex related-matters can leave a long lasting
impact on young audiences. Such things can traumatize young
individuals or even incite them to participate in juvenile delinquency.
This is due to the fact that children tend to be extremely
impressionable and highly susceptible to what they watch. Some might
even idolize criminals or sex-traffickers because they cannot tell these
people are bad or good. This consequently could have an adverse
bearing on young people’s lives.
In conclusion, what children see on TV and how much they watch it
both affect the way they behave, but the former’s impact is
significantly greater.

Many people believe collaboration is beneficial to the modern world. I

completely agree with this view.
Working together goes a long way towards improving productivity,
which means it could reduce the burden of laborious tasks as each
person would carry a small part of the task. This could subject
individuals to less pressure and stress, which can improve their
performance at school or workplace. In fact research has long shown a
strong correlation between pressure and unproductivity.
Collaboration fosters a sense of trust and camaraderie among people,
creating a healthy working environment. This is partly because we
have to work together towards a common goal and contribute to the
given task, which allows them to spend more time with one another
and have more time to get to know others better. However some people
might argue that teamwork could result in some troubles such as
misunderstandings or some harboring hostile attitudes towards their
counterparts because of individual differences, which can lead to
fertile work.
In conclusion, teamwork obviously has a wide range of merits
although it could entail misunderstandings given differences in each
individual. These differences can be reduced by many ways such as a
heart to heart talk. Learning how to navigate all these difficulties
together can help individuals sympathize and understand other people
even more.

foster a sense of trust and camaraderie among individuals→ creating

healthy working environment→ good for mental health
Teamwork offers a lot of benefits in modern society. To what extent do
you agree or disagree?
Many people believe collaboration is beneficial to the modern world. I
completely agree with this view.
Many university students want to learn about different subjects in
addition to their main subjects. Others feel it is more important to
give all their time and attention to studying for their qualification.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion?
Many university students are now inclined to divide their time
between studying for their major and pursuing interests in unrelated
subjects. In my opinion, it is crucial for undergraduates to learn about
a wide range of disciplines in order to best prepare himself for the
future.
Those who support prioritizing one’s major argue the importance of a
university degree. This is predicated on the assumption that if
students want to get a high-paid job, the most logical way is to
concentrate all their effort on their own subjects so that they can
maintain a top-notch academic record, which may impress employers.
For example, if students want to become a doctor in the future, they
should wholly focus on human bodies, first aid and among others. This
would equip them with necessary skills and knowledge to attend to
their patients in the future.
However, it is in fact more worthy to learn other subjects which have
nothing to do with their major. In fact, some high school students
these days do not know what they love or what they want to become in
the future, thus they have the tendency to take a course which is
popular and claimed to be well-paid. Therefore, if they learn a wide
range of subjects in university, in all possibility, they will manage to
find their interest, making them explore their potentials in different
fields of expertise. This could help them to determine what job they
should take when they graduate from university.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that students should be given the
chance to learn interdisciplinary subjects rather than focus on main
subjects as they would
Many university students nowadays choose to divide their time between studying for their
major and exploring unrelated subjects of interest. I firmly believe that undergraduates should
broaden their knowledge across various disciplines in order to best prepare themselves for the
future.

Supporters of focusing on one's major argue for the importance of obtaining a university
degree. They assume that the logical path to securing a high-paying job is by dedicating all
efforts to their chosen field, thereby maintaining an impressive academic record that may
impress employers. For instance, if students aspire to become doctors, it is crucial for them to
fully focus on subjects like human anatomy and first aid, among others. This specialization
would equip them with the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively care for their future
patients.

However, I firmly believe that it is equally important, if not more so, for students to explore
subjects unrelated to their major. Today, many high school students are unsure of their
passions or future career paths. Consequently, they often tend to pursue popular courses that
are perceived to be lucrative. By studying a diverse range of subjects in university, there is a
higher chance that they will discover their true interests and unlock their potential in different
areas of expertise. This exploration can greatly assist them in determining the most suitable
career path upon graduation.

In conclusion, it is my opinion that students should have the opportunity to learn

interdisciplinary subjects rather than solely focusing on their main fields of study. This
approach empowers them to develop a well-rounded education and discover their passions,
ultimately leading to a more fulfilling and successful future.

Many people firmly believe that collaboration is highly beneficial in the modern world, and I
wholeheartedly agree with this viewpoint. Working together has numerous advantages,
including the potential to enhance productivity by distributing workload among team members.
This not only alleviates the burden of laborious tasks but also reduces individual pressure and
stress, leading to improved performance at school or in the workplace. Extensive research has
consistently shown a strong correlation between high levels of pressure and reduced
productivity.

Furthermore, collaboration nurtures an environment of trust and camaraderie among

individuals, fostering a healthy working atmosphere. This is largely due to the shared objective
of working together towards a common goal and contributing to the assigned task. Engaging in
collaborative efforts allows individuals to spend more time with one another, gaining a deeper
understanding of their colleagues. However, it is important to acknowledge that some critics
argue that teamwork can sometimes lead to complications such as misunderstandings or
hostile attitudes arising from individual differences, potentially hindering productivity.

In conclusion, it is evident that collaboration brings a wide range of benefits, despite the
possibility of misunderstandings arising from individual differences. These challenges can be
mitigated through open communication and dialogue. By learning to navigate these difficulties
together, individuals can develop empathy and a better understanding of others. Therefore,
collaboration remains a pivotal approach, enabling individuals to thrive and succeed in various
aspects of life.

In today's society, the impact of television on children's behavioral development is a topic of

ongoing debate. Some argue that the content children are exposed to on television has a more
significant influence on their behavior, while others believe that the duration of time spent
watching television is the primary factor. This essay will explore both perspectives, although I
am of the view that the content children see on television plays a more crucial role in shaping
their behavior.
On one hand, it is undeniable that excessive screen time can have adverse effects on children.
Spending long hours in front of the television can lead to a sedentary lifestyle, which may
persist into adulthood. This habit could have implications for both their mental and physical
health in the long term, as it becomes deeply ingrained and challenging to break.

On the other hand, I firmly believe that the content children are exposed to on television holds
greater significance in influencing their behavior. Inappropriate material, such as violence or
explicit sexual content, can leave a lasting impact on young viewers. Such content has the
potential to traumatize children or even provide misguided inspiration for engaging in
delinquent behavior. The impressionable nature of children makes them highly susceptible to
the messages they see on TV, increasing the risk of negative consequences. Without the ability
to discern between right and wrong, some children may even develop admiration for criminals
or individuals involved in illicit activities.

In conclusion, while both the content of television and the duration of screen time impact
children's behavior, the influence of the content itself is considerably more significant.
Unsuitable material can have lasting effects on young minds, shaping their behavior and
potentially leading to negative outcomes. It is essential to regulate the content accessible to
children to ensure a healthy and positive influence on their behavioral development.

The most important aim of science ought to be to improve people’s lives.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is said that modern technology makes it easier for students to learn.

Do you agree or disagree
Many people argue that technology enables students to learn easily. I completely
agree with this school of thought.
To begin with, technological advances bring a lot of benefits to students. For
one, with the help of an electronic device accessed to the internet, students
would have all their necessary learning materials at their fingertips, providing
them more opportunities to broaden their horizons and widen their knowledge.
In addition, technology also saves time and energy. This is because, in the past
students had to go to the library to find materials for their studies, but now they
can find them within the comfort of their home. Even those who live in far flung
areas not having access to the library now can all search information online
without having to commute far distance.
Furthermore, in time of covid 19- when the government had to impose tighter
restrictions on movement to try to halt the spread of the coronavirus. So
technology turned out to be a powerful tool to prevent education being
disrupted. Students still continued their studies through learning online
platforms, which helped millions of students all over the world
-modern technology also provides students with a variety of apps depending on
their interest so that they can destress themselves and unwind after nerve
racking hours at schools such as tik tok or facebook. Granted, one might argue
that spending time in a virtual world could have an adverse bearing on students’
academic students. This is predicated on the assumption that because of
technology, students would be addicted to social media and online games.
However, this line of thinking is not sound as it fails to factor in the fact that as
long as students strike a balance between studying and relaxing, such problems
are of no concern.
In conclusion, I believe that technology goes along ways towards making it
much easier and more accessible for students to learn.

On the other hand, I firmly believe that the content children are exposed to on
television holds greater significance in influencing their behavior. Inappropriate
material, such as violence or explicit sexual content, can leave a lasting impact
on young viewers. Such content has the potential to traumatize children or even
provide misguided inspiration for engaging in delinquent behavior. The
impressionable nature of children makes them highly susceptible to the
messages they see on TV, increasing the risk of negative consequences. Without
the ability to discern between right and wrong, some children may even develop
admiration for criminals or individuals involved in illicit activities.

According to the pie chart, work was cited as the main reason for migration,
accounting for 38% of respondents. In comparison, 32% of immigrants stated
that they moved to the UK for educational purposes, while 16% attributed their
migration to accompanying family members. It is worth noting that both the
"Other reasons" and "No reason given" categories accounted for 7% of the total
respondents.

t is widely believed that it is necessary to teach disruptive students separately,

and I wholeheartedly agree with this standpoint for several reasons.

First and foremost, segregating disruptive students has a positive impact on both
their academic performance and overall safety. By separating them from other
students, distractions such as noise are minimized, allowing the focused
students to remain attentive and engaged in their studies. This is especially
critical in subjects like chemistry, where undivided attention is required to avoid
any potential hazards in the laboratory. Furthermore, isolating disruptive
students provides teachers with an opportunity to provide personalized attention
and cater to their unique needs. If these students were taught alongside more
focused students, their requirements might be overlooked or neglected, as
teachers tend to prioritize the needs of the well-behaved students.

Additionally, classifying students based on their behavior contributes to the

improvement of their conduct as a whole. Young students are highly susceptible
to influence and are easily swayed by their peers. If disobedient students are
constantly surrounded by classmates with behavioral issues, it is highly likely
that they will adopt undesirable behaviors and exhibit bad manners. Extensive
research has shown that spending excessive time with disruptive children can
lead to the adoption and imitation of their negative conduct. While it could be
argued that separating the more focused students might pose a challenge for
teachers in managing the less attentive group, this concern can be effectively
addressed by providing teachers with appropriate training, therapy, or even
increased salaries to alleviate stress and anxiety.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that segregating disruptive students from the rest
of the class yields numerous benefits, including improved academic
performance and enhanced student well-being. By implementing such
separation, a conducive learning environment can be established for all students,
minimizing distractions and enabling teachers to address the individual needs of
both defiant and attentive learners.

Title: The Positive Impact of Modern Technology on Student Learning

Introduction:

In today's digital age, modern technology has revolutionized various aspects of

our lives, including the way we learn. Some argue that technology has made
learning easier for students. In my opinion, I strongly agree that modern
technology has indeed eased the process of learning for students. This essay will
explore the various ways in which technology has positively impacted student
learning.

Body Paragraph 1: Access to Information and Learning Resources

One of the major benefits of modern technology for students is the easy access
to vast amounts of information and learning resources. With the click of a
button, students can access online libraries, educational websites, and digital
textbooks, providing them with a wealth of knowledge at their fingertips. In the
past, students had to depend solely on physical libraries and limited resources,
which often posed challenges in terms of availability and accessibility. By
eliminating these barriers, technology empowers students to explore their
subjects more comprehensively and enhances their understanding of various
concepts.

Body Paragraph 2: Interactive Learning and Personalized Education

Another advantage of technology in student learning is the provision of

interactive learning platforms and personalized education. Modern tools such as
educational apps, online tutoring platforms, and virtual classrooms enable
students to engage actively with the learning material. These platforms often use
multimedia resources, including videos, animations, and interactive quizzes,
making the learning experience more engaging and stimulating. Furthermore,
technology allows for personalized education, catering to individual learning
styles and pace. Students can revisit challenging concepts, practice at their own
convenience, and receive immediate feedback, promoting a deeper
understanding of the subject matter.
Body Paragraph 3: Collaboration and Communication

Technology has also facilitated collaboration and communication among

students, both locally and globally. Online platforms enable students to connect
with their peers, teachers, and experts from around the world. Collaborative
tools, such as shared documents and video conferencing, allow students to work
together on group projects, even when physically distant. This collaborative
environment fosters the exchange of ideas, diverse perspectives, and enhances
critical thinking skills. Moreover, technology enables students to seek guidance
from experts and teachers beyond the confines of the classroom, broadening
their educational experience.

Counter-Argument: Potential Challenges and Solutions

While there may be concerns about the negative impact of technology on

student learning, such as distractions from social media or excessive screen
time, these challenges can be effectively addressed. Educators, parents, and
students themselves can promote digital literacy and responsible technology
usage. Implementing effective time management strategies, setting boundaries,
and fostering a balance between online and offline activities can mitigate these
concerns, ensuring technology remains a valuable tool for learning.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, modern technology undeniably enhances the learning experience

for students. Easy access to information and learning resources, interactive and
personalized education, as well as collaboration and communication
opportunities, are just a few of the advantages technology brings to student
learning. When used wisely, technology becomes a powerful ally, empowering
students to become independent learners, fostering critical thinking, and
preparing them for the challenges of the modern world. Embracing technology
in education is not only beneficial but essential for equipping students with the
necessary skills to thrive in the digital era.
The internet is a vast and open platform that can provide both educational and
harmful content.

Without proper supervision and control, children can inadvertently

come across explicit or inappropriate material that can have a
negative impact on their well-being and development. Exposure to
such content at a young age can lead to emotional distress, confusion,
and desensitization to violence.

It is essential for parents, guardians, and educators to be proactive in protecting

children from these risks. Implementing parental controls, using internet filters,
and regularly monitoring online activities can help mitigate the chances of
children being exposed to harmful content. Educating children about online
safety, responsible internet usage, and informing them about the potential
dangers is also crucial.

Furthermore, ensuring open communication with children and establishing trust

is important so that they feel comfortable reporting any encountered
inappropriate content. Encouraging children to engage in age-appropriate online
activities, such as educational platforms or supervised gaming, can also help
mitigate the risks.

In summary, the internet is a powerful tool with educational benefits, but it is

essential to acknowledge and address the potential risks. By implementing
appropriate safeguards and educating children about online safety, we can
minimize the adverse effects of unsuitable content on children.

​ Men and women employed full-time jobs should share the responsibilities of
household chores. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

It is often believed that housework should be done by both full-time working

men and women. In my opinion, I completely agree with this school of thought.
The idea of household chores being divided between men and women can have
several prominent benefits. Chief among these is that it could deepen
relationships between family members. This is because it could allow them to
understand each other more, which is conducive to a happy relationship.
Meanwhile if the house work is not shared, the person who has to do it may
hold a grudge against their partner and gradually the relationship between
husband and wife is likely to turn sour.Moreover, when there is only one person
doing all the household chores, it could take a heavy toll on their mental health
as they have to juggle their jobs with such work, leading them to be more prone
to stress, anxiety and depression.
Of course, critics would argue that there is a deep-rooted concept that “men
build the house and women make it home”, thus women should bear the
responsibility of doing the household chores. This is predicated on the
assumption that men have always been stated as the only people who can make
money, while women are always inferior and conditioned to take care of their
children and house. However, this line of reasoning is completely outdated and
not suitable in this day and age, when both men and women have the equal right
to do whatever they want.
In conclusion,I am of the opinion that both men and women should share
household chores as it would cement their relationship and also improve their
mental health.
Synonyms for "relationship":
1. Connection
2. Bond
3. Association
4. Affiliation
5. Interaction

Synonyms for "household chores":

1. Domestic tasks
2. Household duties
3. Housework
4. Cleaning duties
5. Chores

​ Use of transitions: While your essay does demonstrate coherence,

there is room for improvement in the use of transitions between
ideas and paragraphs. This will help to further develop the logical
 flow and enhance the overall organization of your essay. Consider
using transitional phrases such as "Furthermore," "In addition," or
"Moreover" to connect your ideas more smoothly.
​ Sentence structure: There are a few sentences that could be
rephrased for clarity and conciseness. For example, the sentence
"Meanwhile if the house work is not shared, the person who has to
do it may hold a grudge against their partner and gradually the
relationship between husband and wife is likely to turn sour" could
be rewritten as "If household work is not shared, resentment may
build, leading to a deterioration in the relationship between
husband and wife."
​ Grammar and punctuation: Overall, your essay demonstrates a
good command of grammar, but there are a few minor errors. For
instance, in the sentence "Moreover, when there is only one person
doing all the household chores, it could take a heavy toll on their
mental health as they have to juggle their jobs with such work,
leading them to be more prone to stress, anxiety and depression," it
would be more accurate to say "leading them to become more
prone to stress, anxiety, and depression."