A.

SISI PRO(+)
Some people believe that studying at university or college is the
best route to a successful career, while others believe that it is
better to get a job straight after school. Discuss both views and
give your opinion.
When they finish school, teenagers face the dilemma of whether to get
a job or continue their education. While there are some benefits to
getting a job straight after school, I would argue that it is better to go
to college or university.
The option to start work straight after school is attractive for several
reasons. Many young people want to start earning money as soon as
possible. In this way, they can become independent, and they will be Sisi kontra
able to afford their own house or start a family. In terms of their career, (getting job)
young people who decide to find work, rather than continue their
studies, may progress more quickly. They will have the chance to gain
real experience and learn practical skills related to their chosen
profession. This may lead to promotions and a successful career.
On the other hand, it seems that (IP) it is more beneficial for students
to continue their studies. Firstly, academic qualifications are required
in many professions. For example, it is impossible to become a doctor, Sisi pro
teacher or lawyer without having the relevant degree. As a result,
university graduates have access to more and better job opportunities, (continuing study)
and they tend to earn higher salaries than those with fewer
qualifications. Secondly, the job market is becoming increasingly
competitive, and sometimes there are hundreds of applicants for one
position in a company. Young people who do not have qualifications
from a university or college will not be able to compete.
For the reasons mentioned above, it seems to me that students are
more likely to be successful in their careers if they continue their Kesimpulan ambil
studies beyond school level. sisi pro
(271 words, band 9)
Some people believe that sport is an essential part of school life for
children, while others feel it should be purely optional. Discuss
these opposing views and give your own opinion.
Sport continues to be a controversial topic in the school curriculum,
just as sport itself has become a controversial industry in some
respects. There are valid opinions on both sides, which I will consider
now.
On the one hand, some people feel that sport uses up time which could
be better spent on academic subjects such as exam preparation. In
addition, it might be said that (IP) it is unwise to force children to do
activities which they have no interest in. After all, some youngsters Sisi kontra
are just not sporty, and should be allowed to study instead. Finally, (sport tidak wajib)
there are question marks over the wholesomeness of sport itself, with
drugging and corruption scandals increasingly common, as we see in
cycling at present. Some people believe that this lack of morals sets a
poor example to young people.
On the other hand, though, one major benefit of sport is that it helps
children’s physical development at an important stage. If all their time
was spent studying, they would become unfit and their minds would Sisi pro
eventually suffer. Furthermore, supporters of school sport emphasize
(RV) the importance of team building in sports such as football or (sport wajib)
hockey, which is often felt to be an excellent preparation for
adulthood. Finally, many people feel that a competitive spirit, so
important today, is fostered by sports at an early age. It is notable, for
example, that many successful business people excelled in sport at
school.
Overall, I feel that sport should be compulsory for school children,
because the positive effect on their mental and physical development Kesimpulan ambil
outweighs the negatives. This is as long as (PV) children are given a
wide range to choose from, to ensure their interest is high, and that the sisi pro
sports industry itself maintains the highest standards of conduct (BA).
(293 words) Source: Cambridge Task 2 Band 9
B. SISI KONTRA (-)
Some employers offer their employees subsidized membership of
gym and sports clubs, believing that this will make their staff
healthier and thus more effective at work. Other employers see no
benefit in so doing. Discuss both views and give your opinion
Nowadays, in the wake of healthy living, many employers provide a
plan for the gym and sports club so that their employees can stay fit
and in contrast, some believe that it is not beneficial. I personally think,
that there is no benefit in providing such memberships.
Fitness can increase the overall well-being of people and that can
translate in all areas of life including work. This thought led to the
concept of making beings more fit so that it can increase their Sisi pro
productivity and it led to the mass movement of such concepts where
(employers offer
the individuals are given the opportunity to stay functional and the
monetary cost of it is taken care of by the particular organization. For gyms)
example, companies like Google and Amazon have such practices in
play and it encourages the benefits of movement.
On the other side, there are also some who see no benefit to it and this
is ingrained in the mindset that you cannot force any particular thing
on anyone. So again you can preach the good about something but in
the end, it depends on the mental framework of the individual and
Sisi kontra
whether he/she buys into it and follows that and it is based on the (no benefit)
psychology of resistance in the human mind. We as a species hate the
change and are comfortable with familiarity. There are many places
which implemented such practices but when they observe the rush to
those places to stay healthy then the number of them was very less.
In conclusion, I believe that it requires a better approach to generate Kesimpulan ambil
greater awareness which can eventually lead to a changed thought
process and finally implementation of it. But currently, without it, sisi kontra
there are no advantages of it.