IELTS Band 9 Essays - Task Writing 2 - Essay C2, Appunti di Inglese

Scarica IELTS Band 9 Essays - Task Writing 2 - Essay C2 e più Appunti in PDF di Inglese solo su Docsity! Topics for essays Shopping online In my opinion, high street shops are disappearing due to competition from online shopping websites, which are cheaper and more convenient. Web-based stores allow customers to search for the best deals, make purchases from the comfort of their homes, and receive delivery of their purchased items the next day. Furthermore, it is impossible for traditional bricks-and-mortar stores to compete with the range of choice that can be found online. For example, I recently used the website Amazon to buy some fairly rare academic textbooks that were not stocked at my local bookshop. As a customer, the fact that I can find any product imaginable online makes it almost pointless for me to make a trip to my local high street. • Online shopping is faster, cheaper and more convenient. People can sit at home, search for the best deal, pay, and receive a delivery the next day. Impossible for stores to compete. Personal example: recent purchases on Amazon. • Positives: a world of choice, a solution for busy people or those who can't leave the house. Negatives: rising unemployment, loss of community as high streets become deserted. Some people say that music is a good way of bringing people of different cultures and ages together. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? It is often said that music has the power to unite and connect people, regardless of their cultural backgrounds or ages. I completely agree with this view, and will give my reasons below. Music can certainly reach across cultural and national boundaries and bring people together. Perhaps the best example of this would be the Live Aid concerts that took place back in the 1980s, and which were broadcast to a global audience. Two live events were held simultaneously in the UK and the US, and the objective was to raise funds for famine relief in Ethiopia. The concerts were a huge success, both in terms of the number of people around the world who watched them and their impact on international public awareness of the famine. They demonstrated, I believe, that music truly is the planet’s global language. Just as it transcends cultures, music also has the ability to connect people from different generations. Regardless of age, we can all enjoy a memorable melody, a strong rhythm or a beautiful singing voice, and the best songs seem to have the same magical effect on all of us. This would explain why televised music competitions, such as ‘The X Factor’ or ‘The Voice’, are such popular prime-time shows. These programmes attract incredibly broad audiences because singing and popular songs appeal to children, parents and grandparents alike. I would argue that no other form of entertainment can bring families together in this way. In conclusion, I believe that music is unique in its capacity to create shared experiences between people, irrespective of culture and age. Genetic engineering The negative implications of genetic engineering are often discussed in terms of two key areas, which are food production and the cloning of humans. Genetically modified crops are already being grown, and people are concerned that they may damage whole ecosystems as foods become resistant to diseases and natural predators. For example, scientists are able to produce a variety of corn that releases a toxin to kill certain insects, but this intervention could lead to the disappearance of birds that feed on those insects. In the human realm, some people imagine a world in which clones are used to fight wars or to provide body part replacements. Perhaps cloning could even be used to bring deceased people back to life, which would certainly be a threat to humanity as we know it. Genetic engineering is an important issue in society today. Some people think that it will improve people’s lives in many ways. Others feel that it may be a threat to life on earth. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. It is true that genetic engineering is a key area of modern scientific research, with broad implications for all human societies. While I accept that this field of technology may have its dangers, I believe that the benefits of genetic engineering outweigh the drawbacks. The negative implications of genetic engineering are often discussed in terms of two key areas, which are food production and the cloning of humans. Genetically modified crops are already being grown, and people are concerned that they may damage whole ecosystems as foods become resistant to diseases and natural predators. But perhaps even more worrying is the possibility that humans could be modified or cloned. Some people imagine a world in which cloned humans are used to fight wars or to provide body part replacements. Although perhaps not a threat to life on earth, the implications of such practices would be unprecedented. A more optimistic prediction, and one that I favour, is that humans will find ways to mitigate the risks and use genetic technologies in a responsible way. From the food production perspective, genetic engineering could be the solution to famine in developing countries, if, for instance, crops can be grown more reliably in harsh conditions. From a medical perspective, scientists may use genetic engineering to produce vaccines, to cure diseases, or to correct a genetic defect before a child is born. If properly regulated, even cloning can be done in a way that improves lives. For example, the cloning of individual organs, such as a heart or kidney, could be permitted for transplant purposes. In conclusion, I am convinced that genetic engineering will have a positive impact on our lives, and that people's fears will be unwarranted. Living alone The trend towards people living alone is perhaps even more damaging because of the psychological effects of reduced human interaction. Individuals who live on their own have nobody to talk to in person, so they cannot share problems or discuss the highs and lows of daily life. They forgo the constant stimulation and hustle and bustle of a large family, and are left to their own devices for extended periods of time. The lack of human contact in the home is necessarily replaced by passive distractions, such as television, video games, online chat rooms or Internet surfing. This type of existence is associated with boredom, loneliness, and feelings of isolation or even alienation, all of which are factors that are known to increase the risk of mental illness. Small families In many countries today, people in cities either live alone or in small family units, rather than in large, extended family groups. Is this a positive or negative trend? It is true that cities are seeing a rise in smaller families and one-person households, while the extended family is becoming a rarity. In my opinion, this is a negative development. As families become smaller, the traditional family support network is disappearing, and this can have a negative impact on children as they grow up. In a nuclear family or single-parent household, childcare becomes an expensive and stressful part of daily life. Without the help of grandparents or aunts and uncles, busy parents must rely on babysitters, nannies and after-school clubs to take care of younger children, while older children may be left alone after school and during holidays. The absence of adult family members can mean that friends, television and the Internet become the primary influences on children’s behaviour. It is no surprise that the decline of the extended family has been linked to a rise in psychological and behavioural problems amongst young people. The trend towards people living alone is perhaps even more damaging because of the psychological effects of reduced human interaction. Individuals who live on their own have nobody to talk to in person, so they cannot share problems or discuss the highs and lows of daily life. They forgo the constant stimulation and hustle and bustle of a large family, and are left to their own devices for extended periods of time. The lack of human contact in the home is necessarily replaced by passive distractions, such as television, video games, online chat rooms or Internet surfing. This type of existence is associated with boredom, loneliness, and feelings of isolation or even alienation, all of which are factors that are known to increase the risk of mental illness. In conclusion, I believe that individuals thrive when they are part of larger family groups, and so it is worrying that many people are choosing to live alone or in such small family units. Compare the advantages and disadvantages of three of the following as media for communicating information. State which you consider to be the most effective. • comics fear is that computers become so intelligent that they begin to make decisions without human oversight and without regard for our well-being. In conclusion, while intelligent machines will no doubt improve our lives in many ways, the potential risks of such technologies should not be ignored. Today, the high sales of popular consumer goods reflect the power of advertising and not the real needs of the society in which they are sold. To what extent do you agree or disagree? It is true that we are increasingly surrounded by advertising by companies that want to sell us their products. To some extent I agree that advertising has an impact on sales, but I would also argue that we do need most of the goods that we buy. Advertisements can certainly tempt people to buy products that they might not otherwise want. A good example could be the mobile phone. Every year people can be seen queuing to buy the latest models, even when they already have a perfectly good phone that does not need replacing. Perhaps it is the influence of marketing that leads us to make these kinds of decisions; we want to stay up to date with the latest fashions or own the newest high-status device. The high sales of the iPhone seem to support this idea. On the other hand, I believe that most people do not buy products because of the advertising alone. There are other good reasons why we make these choices, and there must be some kind of need before a person makes a purchase. New versions of products almost always have improved features that buyers may want. A new car, for example, may have greatly improved safety features, or it may be more economical to run, or it may pollute less. A new phone may allow the user to communicate more quickly or effectively, thus enhancing their quality of life. In conclusion, while advertising obviously influences our buying behaviour, I do not agree that people make decisions that go against their real needs. Some people believe that it is more important to teach children the literature and history of their own country, rather than the literature and history of other countries. To what extent do you agree or disagree? People have different views about the teaching of national versus global literature and history in schools. Personally, I support the idea that children should study first and foremost the great books and historical events of their own countries. There are several reasons why I believe that schools should focus on teaching national literature and history. Firstly, children enjoy learning about where they live, and by studying the ideas, culture and history of their own countries they begin to develop a sense of identity. At the same time, this approach is appealing to parents, who studied the same books and historical events and can therefore help their children with school work. English children, for example, read Shakespeare and learn about the Battle of Hastings just as their parents did, and there is educational continuity across the generations. Finally, an emphasis on national literature and history gives educators a narrower teaching scope, making curriculum design an easier task. By contrast, the study of global events and foreign novels could cause unnecessary difficulty and confusion for school pupils. For example, I do not see the point in presenting Russian or Chinese history to a British child who has not yet studied the history of his or her own country in detail. Surely the child would be more able to comprehend historical events that took place in London than those that happened in Moscow or Beijing. Similarly, any exposure to international literature is likely to require the teaching of a foreign language or the use of translations. Young people at primary or secondary school age are simply not ready for such complications. In conclusion, I would argue that it is undesirable for schools to cover aspects of foreign history and literature; they should ground their pupils in the local culture instead. Caring for children is probably the most important job in any society. Because of this, all mothers and fathers should be required to take a course that prepares them to be good parents. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view? It is true that parents shoulder a huge responsibility and that raising children is by no means an easy task. However, I completely disagree with the idea that we should therefore force all mothers and fathers to attend parenting courses. In my opinion, the idea that all future parents should take a parenthood preparation course is completely impractical. Many prospective parents have jobs and busy schedules, and they may not be willing or able to attend regular parenting classes. This raises the question of whether those who missed the classes, or perhaps refused to attend, would be punished. I believe that it would be wrong to do this, and it would therefore be impossible to enforce the idea of compulsory training for parents. Besides, even if parents could be forced to attend, I doubt that people would agree on what good parenting entails, and so it would be difficult to create a parenting course to suit everyone. As well as being impractical, I would argue that training courses for parents are unnecessary. Mothers and fathers have been raising children without any formal help or official interference for thousands of years. Parenting skills are learnt from family members, friends, neighbours and the surrounding culture. Perhaps more importantly, adults learn to be good parents by instinct, by trial and error, and by getting to know their own children; for example, a good parent will try different strategies when faced with a badly-behaved child, and will gradually develop an understanding of what works to correct the behaviour. None of this requires the intervention of a taught course. In conclusion, while compulsory parenting lessons might seem like a good idea, I believe that such a scheme would be unworkable and largely pointless. Some people think that employers should not care about the way their employees dress, because what matters is the quality of their work. To what extent do you agree or disagree? In the modern workplace, dress codes are changing as employers focus more on results than on the rules that employees must follow. While I agree that the way people dress should be seen as irrelevant in many work contexts, I believe that dress codes still exist for good reason in certain professions. On the one hand, many employers have stopped telling their staff how to dress, and I see this as a positive trend. Some of the most successful companies in the world, including technology giants like Google and Facebook, are famous for the relaxed office environments that they try to create. Employees are encouraged to dress casually, and even the company executives and leaders are rarely seen wearing anything other than T-shirts and jeans. However, while managers and programmers are free to dress how they like, they are expected to produce work of outstanding quality. It is clear from the performance and global dominance of such companies that strict dress codes are completely unnecessary in the technology sector. However, I would also argue that rules regarding employees' clothing are still relevant in other work situations. We expect certain professionals, such as nurses, police officers and airline pilots, to wear uniforms. These uniforms may have a practical or safety function, but perhaps more importantly they identify the person’s position or role in society. Similarly, a lawyer, politician or school principal may choose to wear formal clothing in order to portray an image of authority, trustworthiness and diligence. I believe that most of us prefer to see these professionals in smart, formal attire, even if it is not strictly necessary. In conclusion, I support the trend towards relaxed dress codes for workers, but I do not see it as applicable to all occupations or sectors of the economy. Hard working In my experience, there are three main factors that influence how hard people study or work. One key factor that drives people and makes them more studious and goal-oriented is parental pressure. Some medical students, for example, are motivated to study hard because they do not wish to disappoint family members who expect them to graduate successfully and become doctors. On the other hand, there are people who see hard work as a means to escape poverty or create a completely new life for themselves. Finally, it seems to me that some people are more driven and persistent as students or workers simply because they have found a subject or job that they truly enjoy; people who love their work describe it as effortless rather than hard. When a person is described as hard-working, this is almost always seen as a positive trait or attitude. In the realm of education, we expect hard workers to diligently follow instructions, pass their exams, achieve good grades and take their first steps on the path to a successful career. Similarly, in an employment setting, we expect the most motivated, industrious and committed individuals to rise to the top and become leaders or experts in their fields. However, I believe that in some people the desire to work hard can become an unhealthy obsession with perfection, outcompeting others or being the best. When people work so hard that they neglect family and relationships or become stressed and irritable, a positive trait has surely become detrimental. Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement. To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste? It is true that we do not recycle enough of our household waste. Although I accept that new legislation to force people to recycle could help this situation, I do not agree that a recycling law is the only measure that governments should take. In my view, a new recycling law would be just one possible way to tackle the waste problem. Governments could make it a legal obligation for householders to separate all waste into different bins. There could be punishments for people who fail to adhere to this law, ranging from a small fine to community service, or even perhaps prison sentences for repeat offenders. These measures would act as a deterrent and encourage people to obey the recycling law. As a result, the improved behaviour of homeowners could lead to a clean, waste-free environment for everyone. However, I believe that governments should do more than simply introduce a recycling law. It might be more effective if politicians put education, rather than punishment, at the centre of a recycling campaign. For example, children could be taught about recycling in schools, and homeowners could be informed about the environmental impact of household waste. Another tactic that governments could use would be to create stricter regulations for the companies that produce the packaging for household products. Finally, money could also be spent to improve recycling facilities and systems, so that waste is processed more effectively, regardless of whether or not people separate it correctly in the home. In conclusion, perhaps we do need to make recycling a legal requirement, but this would certainly not be the only way to encourage people to dispose of their waste more responsibly. In many cities the use of video cameras in public places is being increased in order to reduce crime, but some people believe that these measures restrict our individual freedom. Do the benefits of increased security outweigh the drawbacks? It is true that video surveillance has become commonplace in many cities in recent years. While I understand that critics may see this as an invasion of privacy, I believe that the benefits do outweigh the drawbacks. There are two main reasons why people might disapprove of the use of video cameras in public places. The first objection is that these cameras invade our privacy, in the sense that we are constantly being watched by the authorities or by private security firms. Many people find this intrusive and feel that the recording of their movements is a form of state control that curtails their individual freedom. The second argument against the proliferation of CCTV cameras is that they are being used as an alternative to police officers patrolling the streets. If this is indeed happening, then it is unlikely that members of the public will feel safer. In spite of the drawbacks mentioned above, I believe that the use of video cameras to monitor public areas is a positive measure. The key objective of video surveillance is to deter criminals and to prevent crime. For example, petty criminals like shoplifters and pickpockets are less likely to operate in parts of cities where they know that they are being watched. At the same time, when crimes are committed, the police can use video evidence to catch and prosecute offenders. Therefore, in my view, video cameras offer valuable support to police officers, and they make cities safer for inhabitants, workers and visitors alike. In conclusion, it seems to me that we gain more than we lose from the enhanced security that CCTV cameras bring to our cities. Some parents buy their children whatever they ask for, and allow their children to do whatever they want. Is this a good way to raise children? What consequences could this style of parenting have for children as they get older? It is true that some parents are overly permissive and tend to spoil their children. In my opinion, this is not a good parenting style, and it can have a range of negative long-term consequences. Some universities now offer their courses on the Internet so that people can study online. Is this a positive or negative development? It is true that online courses are becoming a common feature of university education. Although there are some drawbacks of Internet-based learning, I would argue that there are far more benefits. The main drawback of the trend towards online university courses is that there is less direct interaction. Students may not have the opportunity to engage face-to-face with their teachers, and will instead have to rely on written forms of communication. Similarly, students who study online do not come into direct contact with each other, and this could have a negative impact on peer support, discussion and exchange of ideas. For example, whereas students on traditional courses can attend seminars and even discuss their subjects over coffee after lessons, online learners are restricted to chatting through website forum areas. These learners may also lack the motivation and element of competition that face-to-face group work brings. Despite the negatives mentioned above, I believe that online university courses are a positive development for various reasons. Firstly, they allow learners to study in a flexible way, meaning that they can work whenever and wherever is convenient, and they can cover the material at their own pace. Secondly, the cost of a university education can be greatly reduced, while revenues for institutions may increase as more students can be taught. Finally, online learning offers open access to anybody who is willing to study, regardless of age, location, ability and background. For example, my uncle, who is 65 years old, has recently enrolled on an online MBA course in a different country, which would have been impossible in the days before Internet-based education. In conclusion, while I recognise the possible disadvantages of online learning, I consider it to be a positive development overall. It is inevitable that traditional cultures will be lost as technology develops. Technology and traditional cultures are incompatible. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view? Some people believe that technological developments lead to the loss of traditional cultures. I partly agree with this assertion; while it may be true in the case of some societies, others seem to be unaffected by technology and the modern world. On the one hand, the advances in technology that have driven industrialisation in developed countries have certainly contributed to the disappearance of traditional ways of life. For example, in pre-industrial Britain, generations of families grew up in the same small village communities. These communities had a strong sense of identity, due to their shared customs and beliefs. However, developments in transport, communications and manufacturing led to the dispersal of families and village communities as people moved to the cities in search of work. Nowadays most British villages are inhabited by commuters, many of whom do not know their closest neighbours. On the other hand, in some parts of the world traditional cultures still thrive. There are tribes in the Amazon Rainforest, for example, that have been completely untouched by the technological developments of the developed world. These tribal communities continue to hunt and gather food from the forest, and traditional skills are passed on to children by parents and elders. Other traditional cultures, such as farming communities in parts of Africa, are embracing communications technologies. Mobile phones give farmers access to information, from weather predictions to market prices, which helps them to prosper and therefore supports their culture. In conclusion, many traditional ways of life have been lost as a result of advances in technology, but other traditional communities have survived and even flourished. Extreme sports such as sky diving and skiing are very dangerous and should be banned. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view? In recent years, extreme sports have become increasingly popular, and some people argue that governments should prohibit them. I completely disagree with the idea that these sports are too dangerous, and I therefore believe that they should not be banned. In my opinion, so-called extreme sports are not as dangerous as many people think. All sports involve some element of risk, and there should always be clear regulations and safety procedures to reduce the possibility of accidents. People who take part in extreme sports are usually required to undergo appropriate training so that the dangers are minimised. For example, anyone who wants to try skydiving will need to sign up for lessons with a registered club, and beginners are not allowed to dive solo; they must be accompanied by an experienced professional. Finally, the protective equipment and technology used in sports from motor racing to mountain climbing is constantly improving safety. While I support regulations and safety measures, I believe that it would be wrong, and almost impossible, to ban extreme sports. In the first place, we should all be free to decide how we spend our leisure time; as long as we understand the risks, I do not believe that politicians should stop us from enjoying ourselves. However, an even stronger argument against such a ban would be the difficulty of enforcing it. Many of the most risky sports, like base jumping or big wave surfing, are practised far away from the reach of any authorities. I cannot imagine the police being called to stop people from parachuting off a mountain face or surfing on an isolated beach. In conclusion, people should take part in sports which are highly risky only after undergoing a certain amount of training and such sports should not be banned completely. / I strongly believe that certain sports should not be banned since there are safety policies being implemented and the risks are disclosed to the adventure-seekers. In many countries, a small number of people earn extremely high salaries. Some people believe that this is good for the country, but others think that governments should not allow salaries above a certain level. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. People have different views about whether governments should introduce a maximum wage. While in some ways it may seem reasonable to allow people to earn as much as companies are willing to pay, I personally believe that employee remuneration should be capped at a certain level. There are various reasons why it might be considered beneficial to allow people to be paid extremely high salaries. If companies offer excellent pay packages, they can attract the most talented people in their fields to work for them. For example, technology companies like Google are able to employ the best programmers because of the huge sums that they are willing to pay. Furthermore, these well-paid employees are likely to be highly motivated to work hard and therefore drive their businesses successfully. In theory, this should result in a thriving economy and increased tax revenues, which means that paying high salaries benefits everyone. However, I agree with those who argue that there should be a maximum wage. By introducing a limit on earnings, the pay-gap between bosses and employees can be reduced. Currently, the difference between normal and top salaries is huge, and this can demotivate workers who feel that the situation is unfair. With lower executive salaries, it might become feasible to introduce higher minimum wages, and everybody would be better off. One possible consequence of greater equality could be that poverty and crime rates fall because the general population will experience an improved standard of living. In conclusion, it seems to me that it would be better, on balance, for governments to set a limit on the wages of the highest earners in society. Some people think that instead of preventing climate change, we need to find a way to live with it. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Climate change represents a major threat to life on Earth, but some people argue that we need to accept it rather than try to stop it. I completely disagree with this opinion, because I believe that we still have time to tackle this issue and reduce the human impact on the Earth's climate. There are various measures that governments and individuals could take to prevent, or at least mitigate, climate change. Governments could introduce laws to limit the carbon dioxide emissions that lead to global warming. They could impose “green taxes” on drivers, airline companies and other polluters, and they could invest in renewable energy production from solar, wind or water power. As individuals, we should also try to limit our contribution to climate change, by becoming more energy efficient, by flying less, and by using bicycles and public transport. Furthermore, the public can affect the actions of governments by voting for politicians who propose to tackle climate change, rather than for those who would prefer to ignore it. If instead of taking the above measures we simply try to live with climate change, I believe that the consequences will be disastrous. To give just one example, I am not optimistic that we would be able to cope with even a small rise in sea levels. Millions of people would be displaced by flooding, particularly in countries that do not have the means to safeguard low-lying areas. These people would lose their homes and their jobs, and they would be forced to migrate to nearby cities or perhaps to other countries. The potential for human suffering would be huge, and it is likely that we would see outbreaks of disease and famine, as well as increased homelessness and poverty. In conclusion, it is clear to me that we must address the problem of climate change, and I disagree with those who argue that we can find ways to live with it. Many governments think that economic progress is their most important goal. Some people, however, think that other types of progress are equally important for a country. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. People have different views about how governments should measure their countries’ progress. While economic progress is of course essential, I agree with those who believe that other measures of progress are just as important. There are three key reasons why economic growth is seen as a fundamental goal for countries. Firstly, a healthy economy results in job creation, a high level of employment, and better salaries for all citizens. Secondly, economic progress ensures that more money is available for governments to spend on infrastructure and public services. For example, a government with higher revenues can invest in the country's transport network, its education system and its hospitals. Finally, a strong economy can help a country’s standing on the global stage, in terms of its political influence and trading power. However, I would argue that various other forms of progress are just as significant as the economic factors mentioned above. In particular, we should consider the area of social justice, human rights, equality and democracy itself. For example, the treatment of minority groups is often seen as a reflection of the moral standards and level of development of a society. Perhaps another key consideration when judging the progress of a modern country should be how well that country protects the natural environment, and whether it is moving towards environmental sustainability. Alternatively, the success of a nation could be measured by looking at the health, well-being and happiness of its residents. In conclusion, the economy is obviously a key marker of a country’s success, but social, environmental and health criteria are equally significant. As well as making money, businesses also have social responsibilities. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Businesses have always sought to make a profit, but it is becoming increasingly common to hear people talk about the social obligations that companies have. I completely agree with the idea that businesses should do more for society than simply make money. On the one hand, I accept that businesses must make money in order to survive in a competitive world. It seems logical that the priority of any company should be to cover its running costs, such as employees’ wages and payments for buildings and utilities. On top of these costs, companies also need to invest in improvements and innovations if they wish to remain successful. If a company is unable to pay its bills or meet the changing needs of customers, any concerns about social responsibilities become irrelevant. In other words, a company can only make a positive contribution to society if it is in good financial health. On the other hand, companies should not be run with the sole aim of maximising profit; they have a wider role to play in society. One social obligation that owners and managers have is to treat their employees well, rather than exploiting them. For example, they could pay a “living wage” to ensure that workers have a good quality of life. I also like the idea that businesses could use a proportion of their profits to support local charities, environmental projects or education initiatives. Finally, instead of trying to minimise their tax payments by using accounting loopholes, I believe that company bosses should be happy to contribute to society through the tax system. In conclusion, I believe that companies should place as much importance on their social responsibilities as they do on their financial objectives. More and more people are migrating to cities in search of a better life, but city life can be extremely difficult. Explain some of the difficulties of living in a city. How can governments make urban life better for everyone? cameras can help to deter people from driving too quickly. Finally, governments or local councils could reduce road accidents by investing in better public transport, which would mean that fewer people would need to travel by car. In conclusion, while punishments can help to prevent bad driving, I believe that other road safety measures should also be introduced. These days more fathers stay at home and take care of their children while mothers go out to work. What could be the reasons for this? Do you think it is a positive or a negative development? It is true that men are increasingly likely to take on the role of househusband, while more women than ever are the breadwinners in their families. There could be several reasons for this, and I consider it to be a very positive trend. In recent years, parents have had to adapt to various changes in our societies. Equal rights movements have made great progress, and it has become normal for women to gain qualifications and pursue a career. It has also become socially acceptable for men to stay at home and look after their children. At the same time, the rising cost of living has meant that both marriage partners usually need to work and save money before starting a family. Therefore, when couples have children, they may decide who works and who stays at home depending on the personal preference of each partner, or based on which partner earns the most money. In my view, the changes described above should be seen as progress. We should be happy to live in a society in which men and women have equal opportunities, and in which women are not put under pressure to sacrifice their careers. Equally, it seems only fair that men should be free to leave their jobs in order to assume childcare responsibilities if this is what they wish to do. Couples should be left to make their own decisions about which parental role each partner takes, according to their particular circumstances and needs. In conclusion, the changing roles of men and women in the family are a result of wider changes in society, and I believe that these developments are desirable. Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild animals because we humans have no need for them. I completely disagree with this point of view. In my opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild animals have no place in the 21st century. I do not believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit of humans, and there is nothing special about this particular century that means that we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the extinction of any species. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why we should let animals die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every last square metre of land in order to feed or accommodate the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with wild animals, and this should be our aim. I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is usually the protection of natural habitats that ensures the survival of wild animals, and most scientists agree that these habitats are also crucial for human survival. For example, rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilise the Earth’s climate. If we destroyed these areas, the costs of managing the resulting changes to our planet would far outweigh the costs of conservation. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth. In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist, and I believe that we should do everything we can to protect them. Happiness is considered very important in life. Why is it difficult to define? What factors are important in achieving happiness? It is no doubt true that the majority of people would like to be happy in their lives. While the personal nature of happiness makes it difficult to describe, there do seem to be some common needs that we all share with regard to experiencing or achieving happiness. Happiness is difficult to define because it means something different to each individual person. Nobody can fully understand or experience another person’s feelings, and we all have our own particular passions from which we take pleasure. Some people, for example, derive a sense of satisfaction from earning money or achieving success, whereas for others, health and family are much more important. At the same time, a range of other feelings, from excitement to peacefulness, may be associated with the idea of happiness, and the same person may therefore feel happy in a variety of different ways. Although it seems almost impossible to give a precise definition of happiness, most people would agree that there are some basic preconditions to achieving it. Firstly, it is hard for a person to be happy if he or she does not have a safe place to live and enough food to eat. Our basic survival needs must surely be met before we can lead a pleasant life. Secondly, the greatest joy in life is usually found in shared experiences with family and friends, and it is rare to find a person who is content to live in complete isolation. Other key factors could be individual freedom and a sense of purpose in life. In conclusion, happiness is difficult to define because it is particular to each individual, but I believe that our basic needs for shelter, food and company need to be fulfilled before we can experience it. Families who send their children to private schools should not be required to pay taxes that support the state education system. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Some people believe that parents of children who attend private schools should not need to contribute to state schools through taxes. Personally, I completely disagree with this view. For a variety of reasons, it would be wrong to reduce taxes for families who pay for private education. Firstly, it would be difficult to calculate the correct amount of tax reduction for these families, and staff would be required to manage this complex process. Secondly, we all pay a certain amount of tax for public services that we may not use. For example, most people are fortunate enough not to have to call the police or fire brigade at any time in their lives, but they would not expect a tax reduction for this. Finally, if wealthy families were given a tax discount for sending their children to private schools, we might have a situation where poorer people pay higher taxes than the rich. In my opinion, we should all be happy to pay our share of the money that supports public schools. It is beneficial for all members of society to have a high quality education system with equal opportunities for all young people. This will result in a well-educated workforce, and in turn a more productive and prosperous nation. Parents of children in private schools may also see the advantages of this in their own lives. For example, a company owner will need well qualified and competent staff, and a well-funded education system can provide such employees. In conclusion, I do not believe that any financial concessions should be made for people who choose private education. When choosing a job, the salary is the most important consideration. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Many people choose their jobs based on the size of the salary offered. Personally, I disagree with the idea that money is the key consideration when deciding on a career, because I believe that other factors are equally important. On the one hand, I agree that money is necessary in order for people to meet their basic needs. For example, we all need money to pay for housing, food, bills, health care, and education. Most people consider it a priority to at least earn a salary that allows them to cover these needs and have a reasonable quality of life. If people chose their jobs based on enjoyment or other nonfinancial factors, they might find it difficult to support themselves. Artists and musicians, for instance, are known for choosing a career path that they love, but that does not always provide them with enough money to live comfortably and raise a family. Nevertheless, I believe that other considerations are just as important as what we earn in our jobs. Firstly, personal relationships and the atmosphere in a workplace are extremely important when choosing a job. Having a good manager or friendly colleagues, for example, can make a huge difference to workers’ levels of happiness and general quality of life. Secondly, many people’s feelings of job satisfaction come from their professional achievements, the skills they learn, and the position they reach, rather than the money they earn. Finally, some people choose a career because they want to help others and contribute something positive to society. In conclusion, while salaries certainly affect people’s choice of profession, I do not believe that money outweighs all other motivators. Some people think that in the modern world we are more dependent on each other, while others think that people have become more independent. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. People have different views about whether we are more or less dependent on others nowadays. In my view, modern life forces us to be more independent than people were in the past. There are two main reasons why it could be argued that we are more dependent on each other now. Firstly, life is more complex and difficult, especially because the cost of living has increased so dramatically. For example, young adults tend to rely on their parents for help when buying a house. Property prices are higher than ever, and without help it would be impossible for many people to pay a deposit and a mortgage. Secondly, people seem to be more ambitious nowadays, and they want a better quality of life for their families. This means that both parents usually need to work full-time, and they depend on support from grandparents and babysitters for child care. However, I would agree with those who believe that people are more independent these days. In most countries, families are becoming smaller and more dispersed, which means that people cannot count on relatives as much as they used to. We also have more freedom to travel and live far away from our home towns. For example, many students choose to study abroad instead of going to their local university, and this experience makes them more independent as they learn to live alone. Another factor in this growing independence is technology, which allows us to work alone and from any part of the world. In conclusion, while there are some reasons to believe that people now depend on each other more, my own view is that we are more independent than ever. Foreign visitors should pay more than local visitors for cultural and historical attractions. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? It is sometimes argued that tourists from overseas should be charged more than local residents to visit important sites and monuments. I completely disagree with this idea. The argument in favour of higher prices for foreign tourists would be that cultural or historical attractions often depend on state subsidies to keep them going, which means that the resident population already pays money to these sites through the tax system. However, I believe this to be a very shortsighted view. Foreign tourists contribute to the economy of the host country with the money they spend on a wide range of goods and services, including food, souvenirs, accommodation and travel. The governments and inhabitants of every country should be happy to subsidise important tourist sites and encourage people from the rest of the world to visit them. If travellers realised that they would have to pay more to visit historical and cultural attractions in a particular nation, they would perhaps decide not to go to that country on holiday. To take the UK as an example, the tourism industry and many related jobs rely on visitors coming to the country to see places like Windsor Castle or Saint Paul’s Cathedral. These two sites charge the same price regardless of nationality, and this helps to promote the nation’s cultural heritage. If overseas tourists stopped coming due to higher prices, there would be a risk of insufficient funding for the maintenance of these important buildings. In conclusion, I believe that every effort should be made to attract tourists from overseas, and it would be counterproductive to make them pay more than local residents. 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 favour of them because of their benefits to humanity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. It is true that medicines and other products are routinely tested on animals before they are cleared for human use. While I tend towards the viewpoint that animal testing is morally wrong, I would have to support a limited amount of animal experimentation for the development of medicines. On the one hand, there are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. To use a common example of this practice, laboratory mice may be given an illness so that the effectiveness of a new drug can be measured. Opponents of such research argue that humans have no right to subject animals to this kind of trauma, and that the lives of all activity, but now I enjoy it much more than I did when I started. I believe that many hobbies give us more pleasure when we reach a higher level of performance because the results are better and the feeling of achievement is greater. In conclusion, simple hobbies can be fun and relaxing, but difficult hobbies can be equally pleasurable for different reasons. Nowadays the way many people interact with each other has changed because of technology. In what ways has technology affected the types of relationships that people make? Has this been a positive or negative development? It is true that new technologies have had an influence on communication between people. Technology has affected relationships in various ways, and in my opinion there are both positive and negative effects. Technology has had an impact on relationships in business, education and social life. Firstly, telephones and the Internet allow business people in different countries to interact without ever meeting each other. Secondly, services like Skype create new possibilities for relationships between students and teachers. For example, a student can now take video lessons with a teacher in a different city or country. Finally, many people use social networks, like Facebook, to make new friends and find people who share common interests, and they interact through their computers rather than face to face. On the one hand, these developments can be extremely positive. Cooperation between people in different countries was much more difficult when communication was limited to written letters or telegrams. Nowadays, interactions by email, phone or video are almost as good as face-to-face meetings, and many of us benefit from these interactions, either in work or social contexts. On the other hand, the availability of new communication technologies can also have the result of isolating people and discouraging real interaction. For example, many young people choose to make friends online rather than mixing with their peers in the real world, and these ‘virtual’ relationships are a poor substitute for real friendships. In conclusion, technology has certainly revolutionised communication between people, but not all of the outcomes of this revolution have been positive. We cannot help everyone in the world that needs help, so we should only be concerned with our own communities and countries. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Some people believe that we should not help people in other countries as long as there are problems in our own society. I disagree with this view because I believe that we should try to help as many people as possible. On the one hand, I accept that it is important to help our neighbours and fellow citizens. In most communities there are people who are impoverished or disadvantaged in some way. It is possible to find homeless people, for example, in even the wealthiest of cities, and for those who are concerned about this problem, there are usually opportunities to volunteer time or give money to support these people. In the UK, people can help in a variety of ways, from donating clothing to serving free food in a soup kitchen. As the problems are on our doorstep, and there are obvious ways to help, I can understand why some people feel that we should prioritise local charity. At the same time, I believe that we have an obligation to help those who live beyond our national borders. In some countries the problems that people face are much more serious than those in our own communities, and it is often even easier to help. For example, when children are dying from curable diseases in African countries, governments and individuals in richer countries can save lives simply by paying for vaccines that already exist. A small donation to an international charity might have a much greater impact than helping in our local area. In conclusion, it is true that we cannot help everyone, but in my opinion national boundaries should not stop us from helping those who are in need. In recent years, there has been growing interest in the relationship between equality and personal achievement. Some people believe that individuals can achieve more in egalitarian societies. Others believe that high levels of personal achievement are possible only if individuals are free to succeed or fail according to their individual merits. What is your view of the relationship between equality and personal success? In my opinion, an egalitarian society is one in which everyone has the same rights and the same opportunities. I completely agree that people can achieve more in this kind of society. Education is an important factor with regard to personal success in life. I believe that all children should have access to free schooling, and higher education should be either free or affordable for all those who chose to pursue a university degree. In a society without free schooling or affordable higher education, only children and young adults from wealthier families would have access to the best learning opportunities, and they would therefore be better prepared for the job market. This kind of inequality would ensure the success of some but harm the prospects of others. I would argue that equal rights and opportunities are not in conflict with people’s freedom to succeed or fail. In other words, equality does not mean that people lose their motivation to succeed, or that they are not allowed to fail. On the contrary, I believe that most people would feel more motivated to work hard and reach their potential if they thought that they lived in a fair society. Those who did not make the same effort would know that they had wasted their opportunity. Inequality, on the other hand, would be more likely to demotivate people because they would know that the odds of success were stacked in favour of those from privileged backgrounds. In conclusion, it seems to me that there is a positive relationship between equality and personal success. Universities should accept equal numbers of male and female students in every subject. To what extent do you agree or disagree? In my opinion, men and women should have the same educational opportunities. However, I do not agree with the idea of accepting equal proportions of each gender in every university subject. Having the same number of men and women on all degree courses is simply unrealistic. Student numbers on any course depend on the applications that the institution receives. If a university decided to fill courses with equal numbers of males and females, it would need enough applicants of each gender. In reality, many courses are more popular with one gender than the other, and it would not be practical to aim for equal proportions. For example, nursing courses tend to attract more female applicants, and it would be difficult to fill these courses if fifty per cent of the places needed to go to males. Apart from the practical concerns expressed above, I also believe that it would be unfair to base admission to university courses on gender. Universities should continue to select the best candidates for each course according to their qualifications. In this way, both men and women have the same opportunities, and applicants know that they will be successful if they work hard to achieve good grades at school. If a female student is the best candidate for a place on a course, it is surely wrong to reject her in favour of a male student with lower grades or fewer qualifications. In conclusion, the selection of university students should be based on merit, and it would be both impractical and unfair to change to a selection procedure based on gender. Some people think that museums should be enjoyable places to entertain people, while others believe that the purpose of museums is to educate. Discuss both views and give you own opinion. People have different views about the role and function of museums. In my opinion, museums can and should be both entertaining and educational. On the one hand, it can be argued that the main role of a museum is to entertain. Museums are tourist attractions, and their aim is to exhibit a collection of interesting objects that many people will want to see. The average visitor may become bored if he or she has to read or listen to too much educational content, so museums often put more of an emphasis on enjoyment rather than learning. This type of museum is designed to be visually spectacular, and may have interactive activities or even games as part of its exhibitions. On the other hand, some people argue that museums should focus on education. The aim of any exhibition should be to teach visitors something that they did not previously know. Usually this means that the history behind the museum’s exhibits needs to be explained, and this can be done in various ways. Some museums employ professional guides to talk to their visitors, while other museums offer headsets so that visitors can listen to detailed commentary about the exhibition. In this way, museums can play an important role in teaching people about history, culture, science and many other aspects of life. In conclusion, it seems to me that a good museum should be able to offer an interesting, enjoyable and educational experience so that people can have fun and learn something at the same time. 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 able to afford their own house or start a family. In terms of their career, 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, I believe that 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, teacher or lawyer without having the relevant degree. As a result, university graduates have access to more and better job opportunities, 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 studies beyond school level. Several languages are in danger of extinction because they are spoken by very small numbers of people. Some people say that governments should spend public money on saving these languages, while others believe that would be a waste of money. Discuss both these views and give your opinion. It is true that some minority languages may disappear in the near future. Although it can be argued that governments could save money by allowing this to happen, I believe that these languages should be protected and preserved. There are several reasons why saving minority languages could be seen as a waste of money. Firstly, if a language is only spoken by a small number of people, expensive education programmes will be needed to make sure that more people learn it, and the state will have to pay for facilities, teachers and marketing. This money might be better spent on other public services. Secondly, it would be much cheaper and more efficient for countries to have just one language. Governments could cut all kinds of costs related to communicating with each minority group. Despite the above arguments, I believe that governments should try to preserve languages that are less widely spoken. A language is much more than simply a means of communication; it has a vital connection with the cultural identity of the people who speak it. If a language disappears, a whole way of life will disappear with it, and we will lose the rich cultural diversity that makes societies more interesting. By spending money to protect minority languages, governments can also preserve traditions, customs and behaviours that are part of a country’s history. In conclusion, it may save money in the short term if we allow minority languages to disappear, but in the long term this would have an extremely negative impact on our cultural heritage.(258 words band 9) Explain some of the ways in which humans are damaging the environment. What can governments do to address these problems? What can individual people do? Humans are responsible for a variety of environmental problems, but we can also take steps to reduce the damage that we are causing to the planet. This essay will discuss environmental problems and the measures that governments and individuals can take to address these problems. Two of the biggest threats to the environment are air pollution and waste. Gas emissions from factories and exhaust fumes from vehicles lead to global warming, which may have a devastating effect on the planet in the future. As the human population increases, we are also producing ever greater quantities of waste, which contaminates the earth and pollutes rivers and oceans. Governments could certainly make more effort to reduce air pollution. They could introduce laws to limit emissions from factories or to force companies to use renewable energy from solar, wind or water power. They could also impose Oil, gas and coal are all non-renewable resources. This is known worldwide, as well as the fact that society lives above its demands. Even though fuel prices have increased significantly over the last decade, consumption will still cause these resources to run out eventually. It has been argued that the only way to decrease the usage of fuel is to further increase the prices. Currently, most people think in the present and do not consider the future enough. Therefore, to affect people in their everyday lives, fuel prices ought to be raised. It is theorised that this will significantly decrease fossil fuel usage, as economic impact will be forced onto current users. It is necessary that fuel prices are high enough to immediately decrease the wealth of a family and make more people switch to public transport. Critics of this would argue, however, that society’s fossil fuels, such as petrol for cars, have an inelastic price and that price hikes would have no effect other than increasing tax and oil company revenues. In addition, a significant increase in prices would not only impact each individual, but also a whole economy. Fuel prices are not only linked to transport, but also to food production, home heating and entertainment. A rise in prices in all these areas would seriously affect the standard of living of families with limited income and would mean the poorer parts of society would become even poorer. In conclusion, while raising fuel prices is one of the most commonly-discussed solutions to fuel usage problems, this answer includes too many negative variables. Certainly, increasing fuel prices would create a small reduction of transport usage, but the far-reaching effects would be unfair and unsustainable. Many people believe in the idea of school children wearing a school uniform, but should teachers as well be required to conform to a dress code? The wearing of school uniforms is an issue that is both supported and opposed by many people. Numerous schools around the world require students to wear school uniforms on their grounds, however, teachers are not often required to wear a specific uniform while working. It has therefore been suggested that it should be compulsory for teachers to wear a specific uniform or follow a specific dress code on a daily basis. One reason for introducing a dress code for teachers would be that teachers typically function as role models. For students who are not willing to conform to the dress code of their school, it would be beneficial to see figures of authority wearing the same outfit as each other, and they would then potentially be more willing to follow their own dress code. Another reason for introducing a compulsory dress code for teachers would be that if all teachers wore the same outfit, there would be no visible difference amongst them. Naturally some teachers are wealthier than others and would tend to show this through their clothing. This could cause other teachers to feel inferior and therefore could result in lower quality work and decreased motivation. Furthermore, students would feel treated more fairly, if not only they, but teachers as well had to wear a certain uniform in school. Lastly, uniforms for teachers would enable students and other teachers to easily distinguish between school staff and other adults. In many schools there is no high quality security system and strangers can easily enter and steal something or commit other crimes. If teachers wore uniforms, one would then be able to approach and confront strangers more easily, as one could distinguish teachers wearing uniforms clearly from other adults. In conclusion, there are many positive effects of introducing uniforms for teachers and therefore, in my opinion, they should be installed in as many schools as possible. Today’s society provides people with various ways to lose weight, such as special diets or exercise regimes. Many people believe though that poor food and today’s lifestyle should be addressed first. What is your opinion? In modern day western society one can easily become obese, as the availability of cheap and unhealthy food is high. Nonetheless, many people desire to be healthy and slim and therefore have chosen to follow special diets or exercise regimes so as to not become obese. Others believe, however, that people should be better informed about today’s unhealthy lifestyles and the poor food they are consuming before such diets and regimes are taken into consideration. Personally, I agree that the unhealthy lifestyle of many people must be addressed before thinking about ways of losing weight through special diets. It has become habitual for people to cook using ingredients that have been pre-cooked or to which chemicals have been added. Additionally, several people consume a lot of microwave and fast food, which are both easy to purchase and prepare, but are often fairly unhealthy. Due to the fact that it has become less popular to cook meals using fresh ingredients, people consume chemicals, taste intensifiers, salt and sugar without realising. By consuming food that has been made by mass production, one no longer has to think largely about how a meal is prepared and can simply consume it without thinking about the ingredients. It seems logical that in order to lose weight effectively and over a long period of time, one has to learn to eat in a healthy way and to carry out sport on a regular basis. Learning how to cook with fresh ingredients is an important aspect of eating in a healthy way, and, by doing so, people can avoid eating food that has been pre-made. If people do not understand this concept, they will fall back into unhealthily habits after their diet is over. In conclusion, today’s unhealthy lifestyles as well as the poor quality food consumed by people on a regular basis must be addressed before thinking about diets or exercise regimes. If people can combine exercise with wholesome eating habits, they will be happier and healthier. The breakthroughs in medical science are by far the most significant advances in world society over the last two centuries. Discuss this statement and give your opinion. Over the last two hundred years, there have been many changes to society in nearly all aspects of people’s lives. Medical science has advanced beyond recognition and it can be argued that this has been the most significant change. The last two centuries have witnessed great advances of the industrial revolution. Automation, machinery and various technologies have revolutionised the way people live, work, play and travel. Society has now many things that make people’s lives easier and more enjoyable, including cars, planes, computers and telephones to name only a few. It is quite clear that these advances are phenomenally significant in most people’s lives today. Medical science has also been revolutionised. The three principal challenges facing surgery, which were pain, infection and bleeding, have all been overcome, allowing the lives of millions to be saved. The discoveries of vaccines to deal with the great killer diseases of history also took place over the last two centuries. Probably billions of people who would have died from diseases such as smallpox, tuberculosis, diphtheria and tetanus have all been saved. In addition to this, medicine now has such an advanced knowledge of human body systems that doctors can cure or heal a wide range of ailments that would in the past have been fatal or extremely debilitating. It is also likely that the next century will see similar significant advances. In conclusion, although there have been many different advances in society over the last two hundred years, the fact that so many people have had their lives saved or improved by medical breakthroughs makes it seem incontrovertible that it is these medical advances that have been the most significant. Some people believe today that everyone has a right to access to the Internet and that governments should provide this access for free. Other people believe that access to the internet is not a right and should be paid for like other services. Discuss both these views and give your opinion. Nowadays most information is transmitted over the Internet. A strong dependency on this medium has been created, as personal, political and economic news and information are shared through it. As the Internet is so widely needed, many people believe that governments should provide this access for free. Others believe that Internet access should be paid for. Before the creation of the Internet, people had phones, newspapers and televisions; nowadays the Internet can replace all of these. Society is now built on a system that relies on everyone having access to the Internet, whether this be in school or in work life. However, while it is seen as a basic necessity in western cultures, the costs for accessing it are still too high for some people. When this point of view is taken into account, it can be concluded that governments should provide access, or a division of inequality will be created in society. However, when one takes into account the things that the Internet has replaced, it becomes apparent that most of these are not free as well. It is necessary to pay for phone calls, for television and for newspapers. Storing all the information and passing it to consumers through the World Wide Web also entails costs. This raises the question whether the Internet should be handled differently. Providing Internet access to everyone would mean a significant cost for the governments, especially at times of economic crisis. Therefore, this is not a plausible solution to integrate each individual into the society. In my opinion, while the Internet has become as necessary as a phone, governments should not provide it for free, as the money needed for this would put too much strain on public resources. This finance could be used for even more urgent topics, such as poverty and starvation. Many people nowadays travel abroad for their university education. Why do people do this? Would you consider doing this yourself and why? In recent years it has become normal for high school graduates to travel abroad for their university education. There are numerous positive aspects to studying in a foreign country, such as the discovery of new cultures, the possibility of learning more about oneself and the chance of learning a new language. By travelling to a foreign country, it is certain that one will be confronted with foreign customs and traditions. Experiencing and understanding these customs and their origins provides students with an interesting chance to develop a more open-minded attitude towards others. Additionally, it is also extremely stimulating to learn more about the reasons behind certain traditions and practices. A prime reason for students studying abroad is the prospect of finding oneself and growing as an individual. When living in a foreign country, students have to become increasingly independent and they are confronted with their strengths and weaknesses. Typically students develop increased self-esteem and also acquire or improve upon their skills of housekeeping and cooking, which are important for living independently later on in life. When living in a foreign country students are exposed to a new language and in most cases attempt to learn it. If they already possess some knowledge about the language, they have the possibility of advancing and improving upon these skills with the native population. The ability to speak multiple languages offers students a higher chance of being successful on the international job market, which makes studying abroad an attractive choice. Personally, I would like to study abroad in either Scotland or France, because I would like to experience the life and customs in these countries. Additionally, I would like to become more fluent in French, as I believe this will be beneficial for me later in life. In conclusion, studying abroad offers the possibility for students to grow and develop as individuals and to acquire valuable skills that will be useful in adult life. The world today is a safer place than it was a hundred years ago, and governments should stop spending large amounts of money on their armed forces. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? It is now some time since the whole world was involved in one war. The world nowadays is no comparison to the past, when millions of soldiers were lost on the battlefield. As the world today is significantly safer than previously, it can be argued that governments should stop spending large amounts of money on their military forces. The last World War dates back nearly seventy years and, since 1945, no conflict has taken place in western countries. Thus, people have suggested that spending money on necessities within society instead of armed forces is more useful. However, this is very difficult, as even though no significant conflict has taken place in western countries, they are still involved in the conflicts of other countries. For example, the US contribution in the Iraqi war has only recently ended. For such involvement of military forces in foreign lands, countries still need to have strong armed forces, in case they are needed. In some countries like the UK, the military is already significantly weaker than it has been in the past. However, historically, a hundred years is not that long and because no conflict has happened recently, this does not mean that there will be no conflict in the future. At the outbreak of World War Two, the UK was seriously under-prepared, as it had been thought that the horrors of World War One had convinced everyone of the uselessness of war. In conclusion, certain armed forces are necessary for major countries even though the world is safer than a hundred years ago. They might need to intervene in conflicts in other countries and world peace is by no means assured for the future. childhood and teenage years served me well, and living independently now I don’t have trouble preparing meals for myself and my housemates. Although there are many supporters of this concept, some parents argue that children should not be given jobs to do around the house. They argue that children should be allowed to be children and not have any duties. In their opinion children should enjoy their childhood and should not have to deal with any of the responsibilities adults have to deal with. In conclusion, I believe that giving children chores to carry out is a positive aspect of family life, as I think that it helps children to become independent and makes it easier for them to live by themselves later on in life. There is a problem today that copyright materials such as music, films and books are freely available on the Internet with the result that the owners of the works lose money. Do you feel that this is a good or bad thing? In modern day society, it has become common to make copyright protected material freely available on the Internet with the result that the owners of the work lose large sums of money. The discussion of whether or not this distribution is of positive or negative nature has therefore been raised. Personally, I believe that this issue has both negative and positive effects. Distributing copyright protected material freely online can firstly help make this material more popular. Often people are not willing to spend money on a film or song before being exposed to it once, as they cannot be sure that they will enjoy the material they are about to purchase. If they purchase a song or film and then do not like it, the money spent will have been wasted, which is disappointing. Frequently, people purchase copyright protected material that they enjoyed after being exposed to it once, meaning that often owners often receive money at a later stage. An owner’s reputation can additionally improve, because frequently owners who allow their work to be distributed partially or completely online have a more positive reputation amongst customers. Regardless of the positive effects of the free online distribution of copyright protected material, it can be said that this distribution has several negative effects. Firstly, owners lose large sums of money through it. A lot of time and money can be spent producing the material distributed, as certain spaces and equipment must be rented or bought to produce a certain song or film. Like all other people, artists need money to survive and thus are at a disadvantage when they do not receive money for their work. I personally believe therefore that governments should make sure that when something is performed in public or when work is displayed in public, artists should receive credit and money. In conclusion, it can be said that the online distribution of copyright protected material has both negative and positive effects. In my opinion, it cannot fully be determined whether this distribution is of a positive or negative nature; one must decide upon this for oneself. With the improvements in today’s health care, society has to care for more and more elderly people. Do you feel that society will be able to cope with the increase in numbers of elderly people today and how can it be managed? In current society, the life expectancy in western countries has increased significantly. Also, fewer babies are being born, causing the relative percentage of elderly people to increase. These people have to be taken care of, causing the question to rise whether this number of elderly people can be cared for. When people grow older, they can also develop more health issues, resulting in more visits to doctors and hospitals, and an increased usage of pharmaceuticals. Due to the current large numbers of elderly people, the pressure put onto health care systems is increasing. In many western countries, the state provides most of the health care system. Therefore with increasing numbers of old people, higher percentages of state funding have to be allocated to health care and this could cause shortfalls in other areas, for example education. This change in the distribution of money can therefore impact society negatively. Society should be able to handle these changes. Governments will have been able to predict the changing demographic situations in their countries and plan accordingly. This might indeed lead to other sectors in society having money taken away from them, but caring for the elderly is one of the key responsibilities of today’s governments. For the future, it might be necessary to ensure that an extra insurance charge is levied on people’s salaries in order that any future financial shortfall is met. This would be unpopular, but would allow governments to have the necessary funds available. In conclusion, society today and in the future should be well able to deal with caring for their elderly. It is only a question of careful long-term forecasting and planning. Should governments or teachers be responsible for what is to be taught in schools? In modern day society, it is essential for a child to be educated in order for him or her to have success later on in life. Children are typically educated in schools, which are run by the government. The government officials therefore decide what is taught to the children and what is not. Personally, I believe that it is better if governments are responsible for the subject matter covered in school and not the teachers. It is a common goal to supply all children with the same opportunities in life, meaning that the same core knowledge should be taught to all children to offer them the same benefits. Naturally, some children will be better at certain subjects than others and will therefore obtain a more detailed degree of knowledge, yet every child should be taught the same core knowledge. Education provides opportunities, because certain types of education will enable children to pursue certain careers later on in life. Supplying the same core knowledge is an essential concept, yet it has not been put into action in several countries. In Germany, for example, the syllabus taught depends on the region of the country. In certain regions, children attend school for thirteen years and in other regions for twelve years. This raises the question whether or not the children obtain the same degree of knowledge and that the children attending school for thirteen years are at an advantage compared to those attending school for twelve years. Already one can see that problems arise when the regional government decides upon the core knowledge taught to students. If teachers had a say in what knowledge should be taught to students, the subject matter would become even more complex. The core knowledge would not only vary from region to region, yet also from school to school, providing unfair advantages and disadvantages for certain students. In conclusion, the government of a country should decide upon what knowledge is taught in schools, as the situation would become too complex if all teachers were responsible for this aspect. Some people believe that the problem of illegal drugs can be solved by legalising all drugs. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this? Illegal drugs have become a worldwide problem in modern day society. The trading of drugs is widespread in nearly all countries and the number of people consuming drugs worldwide is high. It has been suggested simply to legalise all recreational drugs to solve the problems associated with them. I personally agree partially with this proposal, because I can see many advantages, yet also many disadvantages. One positive aspect of legalising these drugs would be that the number of criminal activities committed to obtain them would decrease. Fewer people would therefore be imprisoned and have a criminal history that prevents them from progressing in life. Additionally, essential police resources would be freed up and devoted to other areas. Finally, high taxes could be imposed on the legal product, allowing governments to have better resources to improve the infrastructure of their countries. Although legalising all illegal drugs could result in several positive effects, there are many negative effects that could be possible. As a result of the legalisation, I personally believe that it would become acceptable to use drugs and people would no longer pay attention to the damage that drugs cause. Schools might no longer educate teenagers and adolescents about the negative effects drugs have on people, resulting in more teenagers experimenting with them, as they would believe that this is a normal aspect of life. This would result in a higher number of drug addicts and potentially in more deaths, because it would be easier to obtain a large amount of illegal drugs and therefore the chances of overdosing would also increase. In conclusion, I partially agree with the proposed action. Nonetheless, I think that an age restriction should be placed on drug use, as teenagers and adolescents could easily become addicted if all illegal drugs are legalised. This group of people is highly at risk of becoming addicted and potentially dying as a result of drug use and therefore should only be allowed to consume drugs after reaching a certain age. In some countries private cars are now banned from certain city centres. What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a system and do you feel that this is something that most cities should adopt? Banning cars from city centres is a recent trend and it can be seen in various cities around the world. Certain advantages and disadvantages immediately spring to mind when considering this step that city councils are taking. The advantages are clear. Since cars were introduced, city centres have always been areas where air quality is poor due to the amount of emissions, which in turn affects people’s health. City centres become quieter and safer for people to wander around shopping and enjoying themselves. Access to city centres can still be good, as it is usually only private vehicles that are banned, and buses and taxis can still take people in and out of the city centre areas. Many towns also operate a park and ride scheme, so people can leave their cars in safe car parks in the outskirts of towns and travel with a dedicated bus service to the town centres. It would seem hard to criticise this kind of scheme. There are critics though to the scheme of banning cars in city centres. City centre shop keepers have often been vocal opponents, as they believe that fewer people will come to the city centres and therefore their incomes will be affected. The general public also sometimes object, as people often like to travel in their own private vehicles. In actual fact, banning cars from city centres has in practice not reduced the number of people who travel to city centres to shop. People like shopping and socialising in city centres and they just adapt to the situation. There is no answer to people who want to drive their own cars. They hopefully will just realise that the sacrifice of not driving their own cars is outweighed by the health and lifestyle improvements of a cleaner and quieter city centre. In conclusion, there are far more advantages to banning cars from city centres than allowing them. It is therefore a measure that most city centres should adopt for their citizens. There are many things that can motivate people to perform well in their work. These can include the salary, job satisfaction or the chance to help others. What do you feel is the best motivation to do well at work? To perform well in a job, people have to be motivated. There are multiple strategies for employers to incentivise their employees. The most obvious one is the salary; however, job satisfaction and the ability to help people are other methods of improving performance at work. For the majority of the people, receiving their salary at the end of the month is their motivation. This is because money is necessary to fulfill the most basic needs and other materialistic desires. Employees see these opportunities when receiving their salary and therefore work to achieve money. Furthermore, performing well in a job can often lead to promotions with higher pay packages. To receive this, staff have to stand out positively in their jobs. Salary is therefore a key motivational tool for many workforce participants. However, money is far from being the only incentive. Another aspect affecting performance is job satisfaction. If a person is comfortable in their work, they are more likely to perform well. Therefore this motivational tool interlinks with salary, as when people are content and perform well, the chances of promotion increase. For some individuals though, only their passion can drive them. Prime examples for this are humanitarian jobs. The salaries are often not very high, but those choosing to work in this field are often very driven; their passion to help others is prioritised over their own salary. In conclusion, while income might be the most common motivational factor, it is unusual to be the sole incentive for working hard, and some people are motivated wholly due to other reasons. With the increase in computer use, many people feel that schools do not need to put the emphasis that they used to on basic handwriting skills or mental mathematics skills. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this? In recent years, computer use around the world has increased drastically. As a result technological equipment is used increasingly in schools around the world. Many people question therefore whether schools should put much emphasis on teaching students basic handwriting skills and mental mathematics skills. The use of technological equipment in lessons has increased since the onset of the digital age. Nearly all professions around the world involve computer use and even the simplest tasks are carried out via electronic equipment. Hence, it is important for students to learn how to use technology correctly for their future careers. Electronic devices also offer various learning advantages, as notes and assignments can be completed much faster and more neatly using these tools. Some people today believe that it is acceptable to use physical force to discipline children, but others feel it is completely unacceptable. Discuss this view and give your opinion. Punishing children with physical force, or corporal punishment as it is also called, is something that was accepted not so long ago and people over the age of forty may well remember it. Nowadays, however, corporal punishment is against the law in most countries and adults who practise it can be taken to court. Children are always a vulnerable group and they depend on adults for protection and education. Of course, part of the growing up process is testing and breaking boundaries and it is nearly always necessary to instill discipline on a child. Whether or not it is necessary to use physical force to do so can be a very emotive subject. Supporters of corporal punishment often defend their standpoint by explaining that the corporal punishment is not, or should not be, excessive. They do not argue that a child should be beaten severely until he or she is bruised or cut. They argue that just the infliction of mild pain causes effective discipline and also the fear that it might be applied. People who grew up experiencing it might offer this point of view. Those who oppose using physical force on a child would say that the vulnerability and innocence of a child means that force should never be used. Children need to trust adults and believe that no harm will come to them. Additionally, children learn from adults and it is argued that corporal punishment will only teach children that force is an answer to various problems. It is also claimed that corporal punishment has no added benefits over other forms of discipline that do not require physical force. Using it can cause psychological harm to children and should be classed as child abuse. Personally, I do not believe that limited use of forms of corporal punishment can cause harm, and a parent who administers a mild form of it to his or her child should not be subject to criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, I would not use it myself. I can also recognise the possibilities of adults who are not a child’s parents misusing corporal punishment. Therefore, I believe that on balance physical force to discipline children should not be permitted. Professional sportsmen and sportswomen and professional entertainers can often command enormous salaries today and this situation reflects society’s dependence on being entertained. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this? It is no secret that today’s entertainment industry is extremely popular, with nearly everyone being engaged at some time in watching TV shows, movies and sports games. The North American sports industry alone generates a massive $67.7 billion every year. With the present emphasis on entertainment, sportsmen and women and professional entertainers can earn enormous salaries, with figures in the millions for one game, appearance or film. This situation certainly does reflect today’s society’s obsession with entertainment. Many people argue that celebrities do not deserve such payment when work in other professions considered of equal or higher value to society is underpaid. A-list celebrities can make over $20 million per movie, whilst many average workers can barely make ends meet. Of course there are lots of people who say that there are better ways the money could be used, rather than allowing such a vast amount to go to just one person. This is a fairly naive point of view, though. So long as people wish to watch entertainment, advertising in turn will be present and the most watched celebrities will be able to earn high salaries, as their presence will ensure the high viewing figures the advertisers desire. Though celebrities and sportsmen and sportswomen often make very large sums of money, it can also be seen as unfair to say that they do not deserve it or propose their money be used for something else. While it is true that they did not find a cure for cancer or made a life-changing scientific discovery, their hard work and expertise created a product that the public wants to see and the high payment merely reflects their value. In conclusion, it is clear that today’s society is indeed a society obsessed with being entertained and the high salaries paid to those who entertain society clearly reflect this. The high payments, however, are not necessarily out of place or undeserved. The fact that enormous sums are paid for pieces of art is not acceptable at a time when many people around the world live in poverty. Discuss this statement and give your opinion. It is true that pieces of art in today’s world can change hands for enormous sums. Works by artists such as Picasso, da Vinci and Rembrandt have been sold for millions of dollars. Recently, a Modigliani was sold to a billionaire for one hundred and seventy million dollars. It certainly seems obscene that such figures are spent when many people around the world live in poverty. The work of many charities would be transformed by the money generated by just one of these art sales and in turn, the lives of ordinary people in need would be transformed. Medicines, food and shelter amongst other things could easily be provided, saving lots of lives, many of which would be children. When the issue is looked at from this point of view, the art sales world certainly seems obscene. However, in my opinion, things are unlikely to change. Human greed is endemic and people who have the drive to earn that amount of money and who actually have access to these sums in cash are not often people who will part with their wealth. Lots of prosperous people support many charities, but it is unlikely that they would completely relinquish their access to the luxuries that accompany their lives. The works of art are also often seen as investments in themselves, to be held on to for a period of time and then resold at a profit. In conclusion, in an ideal world, the vast sums of money that are spent on fine and rare works of art would be better spent on helping those in need. In reality, however, this is unlikely to take place. Every household should have a government-imposed limit on the amount of rubbish it can throw away. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this? The amount of waste people produce can be quite shocking, with every person generating kilograms of rubbish in a single day, and all this can be difficult to manage. This has given some people the idea that there should be a limitation on the amount of rubbish produced per household; however, opinions are divided as to whether this would be the the most effective option. Having a limitation on the amount of waste produced sounds like a fine solution to a significant problem, with over two hundred and fifty million tons being generated in 2016 by the U.S. alone. Taxing households that break limits would push people to produce less waste and make them more mindful of what can be recycled or composted. However, forcing people to produce less waste might not be attainable. Households produce as much waste as they need to live their lifestyles. The waste people generate is only a result of the products they purchase, and will most likely wish to continue to purchase. Taxing people may be a cause of resentment, with many of them already struggling to pay their usual bills. In addition, if people produce more than they are allowed, this will encourage littering and dumping, so that they are not caught with more waste than entitled, and this in turn will damage the environment. Though controlling the amount of waste produced is important, there could be other ways of encouraging lesser output. In my opinion, governments should encourage composting and recycling, which will also reduce wasted material. People should also be more aware of what waste they produce and how it can be reduced. An education drive on these issues would perhaps be more likely to succeed in reducing rubbish than imposing limitations. Everybody today should pay a small amount from their income in order to help people who are homeless and / or suffering great poverty. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this? Homelessness and poverty is a terrible but topical issue in both more economically advanced and less industrialised countries. To deal with this, many people feel that a small proportion of everyone’s income should be used to aid the homeless and poor. This could create more opportunities and change the lives of many disadvantaged people for the better. Though there are certain facilities such as shelters and soup kitchens to aid the poor and homeless, it is clear that this is not enough. In the U.S. alone, a very developed country in itself, nearly two million people are homeless. These facilities can lend a helpful hand; however, they do not help eradicate the problem. Those people who are homeless or poor can have trouble finding jobs, or, if they are lucky to gain employment, the pay may not be enough to support them and their families. If a small percentage of everyone’s income was used to help build more aid facilities and fund organisations to help the homeless and poor, the suffering of many people could be alleviated. However, this is not a perfect world, and taxes are high enough for many people. A similar argument could be that a portion of the taxes already paid to the government should then be set aside for this cause, but of course government funds are usually stretched to breaking point as it is, as governments have so many financial responsibilities already. Though the fundamental idea that people should pay a small percentage of their income to help the homeless and poor is admirable, it is unlikely that enough people would agree to it. People need all the money they earn after taxes anyway and, although governments already have too many calls on their available funds, in my view they should prioritise support payments for the homeless. In some countries, boys and girls are educated separately after the age of about ten years old. Discuss this view and give your opinion. In many countries around the world, boys and girls are educated together. There is a group of countries, however, that educate boys and girls separately. This is frequently done on religious grounds, but not always. Having such a system can produce various advantages and disadvantages. One of the principal reasons for educating boys and girls separately is that, if they are together, they can distract each other. After puberty, boys can be strongly attracted to girls and vice versa, and this can result in disruptive conduct in the classroom as, for example, they show off to one another. Separating boys and girls can therefore have the distinct advantage of reducing this disturbing behaviour. However, some teachers have pointed out that this model does not always work, and that separated boys and girls are equally disruptive in class, and sometimes more so. These teachers say that having the opposite sex in the classroom can actually improve behaviour. Many educators also believe that boys and girls have different learning styles and needs. Separating boys and girls can allow teachers to address these needs more easily. There is also a belief that single sex schools allow gender stereotypes to be challenged and therefore education aspirations can be broadened. A major disadvantage of separating boys and girls in education is that the children miss important formative behavioural development when they do not have interaction with the other gender on a regular basis. This can lead to shyness and, more seriously, dysfunctional relationships later in life. Some people also feel that mixed sex schools can promote gender stereotypes rather than reducing them. In conclusion, I feel that children should be educated all together, although I would respect a system in which they are separated due to religious beliefs. My personal opinion is that different genders should learn to interact together from an early age, as this would allow them to develop healthy working relationships with each other. With the scale of globalisation today, it would be of unquestioned benefit to have a single world currency. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this? Globalisation has become a significant aspect of the world’s modern economy, with countless industries and businesses expanding in various countries. This has led to the debate of developing a world currency with many people believing it could drastically help further develop economies and assist in the development of many countries. A worldwide currency could bring on effects similar to when Euro was developed for Europe. Trade could be significantly encouraged, as there would be no exchange rate fluctuation risks between different currencies. Moreover, tourists would not need to exchange money when travelling. However, there are certain risks to a global currency, which definitely do not make it an “unquestioned benefit”. Countries in debt would not be able to lower their currency value to make consumer goods more desirable, which could develop into a severe economic issue. For example, the US regulated its interest rates to increase the money resources in order to diminish the effect of a recent recession. Also economic problems, such as in Greece, have actually been made worse by the use of the common Euro. If applied worldwide, many countries’ economies could be very similarly negatively impacted. Finally, many countries around the world do not have a stable enough economy to be able to enter a common currency. If weaker countries were to adopt a world currency, this could be disastrous to their economy and to the economies of other countries using the same currency. In conclusion, the extent to which a global currency would be beneficial is quite low. It seems to me that the risks outweigh the benefits, as if a country were to lose economic stability, the world would be impacted as well. For that In addition to this, schoolchildren can be quite nervous about the world of work that they will have to join at some point in their lives. By getting this short taste of what it is like, they can see that it is nothing to be scared about. As well as this, children will often have some ideas of what they want to do for a living, but are not sure. By allowing them to see a type of work they are considering, they are better able to decide whether that career could be suitable for them. I feel, therefore, that work placements can be seen as a positive development. Missing a short amount of school is not serious and the benefits that can be gained from the placements are significant. Many cities have areas where the only cars are taxis and buses. Is this a positive or a negative development? What are the effects of this on individuals and society? Banning cars from the centre of various cities around the world has been a strategy to reduce pollution and encourage people to use public transport. It has had various positive effects for both individuals and for society as a whole. Banning cars from the centre of cities seems to be a very positive development. Fewer cars on the road means less pollution and fewer fossil fuel resources being used up. Although the effect on resources might be relatively negligible, it can create a newer way of thinking regarding the dynamics of transport within cities and this could be the most important benefit to society. Some people working in the centre of these cities may complain about inconvenience, but many would agree that this is a small price to pay. A reduction in the reliance of people on private vehicles is likely to encourage them to use public transport or even bicycles. Using public transport, especially the types that run on clean sources of power, will significantly raise air quality levels in cities, which will of course benefit everyone. The clean air could even further encourage the use of bicycles, which would in turn promote more healthy lifestyles and less obesity. This would contribute on an individual level to people’s well-being and a better and longer life, and on a societal level, it would lessen the strain on public health resources. Governments could encourage this by creating more bicycle lanes to make cycling easier and safer. In conclusion, it is clear that banning cars from the centre of cities is significantly beneficial. Better health and ecology, as well as improvement in longevity and well-being can benefit individuals and the entire society. It is the responsibility of individuals to save and provide for their own retirement. Governments have no obligation to provide this benefit. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? The responsibility for providing funds for retirement is incredibly important and something that is often overlooked by younger people. Some believe it is the responsibility of the individual to plan for this, but others feel it is the responsibility of the state. People who believe that the state should be responsible for funding retirees, base their argument on the fact that in most countries, people pay taxes and social charges to the government. This money, they argue, should also go towards the provision of a pension for the person paying the tax. In addition, those who have very small or no income, pay little or no tax and do not have the ability to provide for themselves. The government, therefore, in its role of caring for the population, has an obligation to pay a pension and provide other social benefits, such as medical treatment. Many others, however, feel that it is the responsibility of individuals to fund their own retirements. As adults, they argue, people should be able to set aside and invest money throughout their lifetime, so that they can retire with few financial worries. In many countries the government has legislated a framework allowing and encouraging citizens to save up and accumulate sufficient funds for the period after their working years have ended. I neither agree nor disagree with the statement, but rather my opinion takes in parts of both arguments. I feel that people should be responsible for saving money to fund their retirement, but I also feel that individuals who have not had the chance to do so should be supported by the government out of taxes. In my view, therefore, it is wrong to say that governments have no obligation to help people in this area. Governments are there to support the entire population of their countries, which includes the poorer elements of society. With the vast increase in online resources today, libraries with print books are not a necessity for today’s society. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? It is indeed true that digital resources today far outstrip what can be put and stored in print books. Almost any kind of book can now be accessed digitally and those that can’t be will soon be changed to a digital format. Some people, therefore, believe that libraries with print books are no longer needed. If one looks at this issue dispassionately, it seems far more logical that people now should only read books digitally. It only requires a single computer or electronic reader and an individual can have access to the history of literature and works on all other fields. The costs involved with setting, typing, printing and distributing print books would practically disappear and this would make things more convenient and much cheaper. An actual library building would be totally unnecessary, as all one would need would be a ‘virtual library’ as a website and all works could be accessed through this portal. There would not even be any need to leave the house to gain access to anything one needed. This would seem to be the most logical way of proceeding. Logic, however, is not always the best approach to everything. Print books have a long history with humanity and our relationship with real books is not something that can be changed overnight. Many people, including younger readers, feel that there is something special about having a book with real paper and needing to turn pages. There will therefore for the time being be a future for print books and libraries. Libraries will continue to be especially important, as not all older people use computers and e-readers as much as the younger generation. They will still want to read print books and the library is a cheap and convenient place to find them. In addition, if only a few books in print are available in the future, libraries might be one of the few places where they might be accessed. Another purpose that libraries serve is acting as community centres that organise events, education and childcare. Ironically, libraries also provide computers and Internet access for people who cannot afford their own. In spite of the seeming dominance to come of digital books, I feel that there is and will be a place for libraries with print books. This state of affairs might change in the future, but at present, they are important community resources. Some people feel that learning a foreign language is an essential component of a child’s education. Others feel that learning a foreign language is often a waste of time that can be better spent on learning about technology and other more vocational subjects. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. Throughout the history of education, learning a foreign language or languages has been a constant component. Of course, many people feel that this is really an unnecessary part of education for everyone, but this is not a point of view that I share. The opponents to learning a foreign language might argue that most people do not travel that often outside their own country. In addition to this, out of all the countries of the world, comparatively not many share the same language. Therefore, learning a foreign language will only be useful for the very limited time that one spends in a country where this language is used. For some people, the language might never be used in their entire lives. When one thinks about how much time and money are spent training language teachers, buying resources, going on trips and delivering lessons for such a negligible benefit, this would seem to be a very inefficient allocation of resources. However, the benefits of learning a foreign language go further than just the ability to use it from time to time on a holiday or business trip. Firstly, through learning one language, one gains an understanding to some extent of how all languages work. Thus, no matter where people might end up around the world, the knowledge of language can be of use. Secondly, with the study of a foreign language, one also opens oneself up to other cultures. This allows in turn an appreciation for different points of view and belief systems. With an ever-shrinking world due to globalisation, the ability to empathise and understand the people from other countries is vital to reducing conflict and creating a more tolerant society. Finally, quite simply learning languages is excellent for the improvement of general cognitive skills. It seems to me that learning a foreign language, therefore, is more than just gaining the ability to speak a few words of a foreign tongue. It is part of intellectual and social development and needs to be continued for everyone in today’s schools. Having a salaried job is better than being self-employed. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? If one wants to work for money, there are really only two options, working for someone else for a salary and being self- employed. Most people are involved with these two options and they both have advantages and disadvantages. Being self-employed means that the worker owns the business that is being done. This might be a small one-person business or a large company with hundreds of employees. The first advantage of this is the capacity to earn more money. If the business does very well, the income can be considerable and the owner of the company will receive the benefits. On the other hand, if business is not good, the owner’s income will be low. Self-employed people also have the benefit to some extent of choosing their working hours and holidays and they have the right to change anything within their business. With this autonomy, however, comes the pressure to succeed and the reliance on one’s employees, if there are any, to do their best to make the business thrive. Salaried workers do not experience the same stress as the self-employed owners of companies. They might have stress in their duties, but the pressure that comes with keeping one’s own business operating successfully in order to support oneself and one’s family is just not felt by an employee. The employee also has a certain knowledge of his or her income, as the salary is usually fixed every month. The self-employed owner’s income often depends on how successful the business is. The employee’s fixed income, however, does not give much scope for earning large amounts more. In addition, an employee does not have the freedoms of the owner or the autonomy, and for many people, having control over their lives is a significant factor to their well-being. It is certain that there are advantages and disadvantages for both being self-employed and salaried. I personally disagree that being salaried is better than being self-employed. I prefer the autonomy that being self-employed brings and, although there is more risk and pressure, this can lead to greater and more fulfilling rewards. Some people think that a person improves their intellectual skills more when doing group activities. To what extent do you agree? Use specific details and examples to explain your view. In recent decades, many researchers have studied the importance of group-level cognition. Indeed, to my mind, there is now convincing evidence that group activities improve the intelligence of individuals. In this essay, I shall examine how research in team-games and study-groups supports this view. To begin with, team-games clearly require individuals to perform a diverse range of rapid mental calculations. This is because, in a sporting context, players must predict and anticipate possible actions within tight time constraints. For example, a recent Cambridge study showed that soccer players can – within the span of seconds – calculate over a dozen different permutations that could result from a single soccer related action. Such predictive powers clearly improve players' mental abilities and result from activities performed in a group context. Secondly, study-groups enable individuals to obtain information that they could not acquire in isolation. This is because peer feedback allows individuals to refine their understanding of concepts and to also learn new information from other members in the study-group. For example, a study by The British Institute for Learning found that, if individuals participated in study-groups, they had a far more objective and sophisticated understanding of a topic than learners who were not part of study-groups. Therefore, it is certainly the case that learning in a group improves an individual’s mental abilities. In conclusion, I strongly agree with the notion that group activities improve intellectual abilities. In the future, we will certainly see schools take greater measures to ensure that more group-level cognition occurs in the classroom. In some countries, the number of shootings increase because many people have guns at home. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give specific reasons and examples to support your answer. Across the globe, many individuals own guns for self-defence and recreational purposes. Gun related mortalities in households – in particular – throw the ethics of such forms of private gun ownership into sharp relief. In this essay, I shall appeal to crime statistics to argue that a person is at a far greater risk being shot if there is a gun in a household. Firstly, it is intuitively obvious that having a gun in a household endangers children and teenagers. This is because minors do not have the requisite knowledge or maturity to handle guns safely. For example, the US Department of Justice recently revealed statistics showing that 150 American children and teenagers die each year because of accidents relating to household guns. Therefore it is incontrovertible that household guns lead to additional shootings. Secondly, household guns became especially dangerous when spouses have violent arguments. This is because male sexual rage, in particular, often results in deadly aggression. For example, The International Crime Bureau recently First, comparing life with a century ago it is possible to list new benefits available such as hospitals, doctors, medicines, diagnoses, donors, and transplants, all of which were extremely rare previously. Advances in the sciences have improved lives across society considerably. For example, consider an operation in France several years ago whereby a woman received a complete face transplant. This would be unthinkable in 1910, therefore, due to science her life has undoubtedly improved. Secondly, health risks have fallen incredibly, so much so that it is possible to visit tropical countries which previously carried considerable dangers. This is because traditionally preventative measures such as vaccinations, immunisation and prescription tablets did not exist. In addition over the last thirty years their cost has fallen rendering exotic travel available to almost anyone with the funds. Therefore modern science has increased the opportunities and reduced the risks related to travel, there has been no parallel in history. To conclude, I strongly agree that biology and improvements in science have increased people's well being and their opportunities to explore the world. This is undoubtedly the first time in history such situations have existed. The world is consuming natural resources faster than they can be renewed. Therefore, it is important that products are made to last. Governments should discourage people from constantly buying more up to date or fashionable products. To what extent do you agree with this statement? Over the last 30 years the West has witnessed the East strive for a larger 'piece of the economic pie', aiming for similar living standards to the EU and US. This has increased pressure on natural resources and prompted suggestions for governments to limit consumption. This idea is severely flawed because it reduces product safety and building products to last would harm the poor. Firstly, the suggestion that governments should discourage consumers from purchasing 'up to date products' would eliminate the opportunity to improve their safety. This is because as technology improves, new discoveries can be used to increase their utility. Take for example the car industry, here technology such as ABS brakes, air-bags, seat belts have all been derived from a constant flow of improvements. Therefore if the authorities were permitted to limit purchases, car companies would be reluctant to invest in new features, and safety would never improve. Secondly, it is true we are consuming more, through ever increasing populations, nevertheless, the argument that 'products should be made to last' is redundant. If products were built stronger they would be more expensive. This would harm the less wealthy consumer, furthermore with modern technology these products can often be recycled at a later date anyway. Glass, plastic, paper, batteries, and even mobile phones are now collected to be re-purposed, reused and recycled. Therefore durable products are unnecessary and would harm lower income demographics. To conclude it is clear that if the public sector were allowed to discourage consumption it would harm product improvements and ultimately consumer safety. Meddling with product durability would most likely harm the poor. Therefore I am strongly opposed to both of these notions. Some people believe that children’s leisure activities must be educational, otherwise they are a complete waste of time. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your experience. To derive a double benefit from anything is considered a bonus, and this is especially the case when discussing leisure activities for children. The idea to fuse both education and entertainment into one activity is a goal of many educators; some would even believe that failure to do this makes the activity pointless. Drawing from examples in Sweden and reviewing games, such as Pokemon, I firmly believe that all activities should have an educational value. Leisure activities are a perfect time to take advantage of the receptiveness in a child’s mind, and some countries are adamant about this. Take Sweden, for example. For many years they have legally stipulated that all children’s toys sold in the country should have some educational value. In addition, for such a rule to be passed it must be upheld by scientific research. Therefore, the advantage of incorporating an education element into toys is scientifically proven. On the other hand, across the UK, children were wasting their time collecting and learning the statistics of each creature on each Pokemon card. If, however, these cards had been intertwined with more educational data the child could have simultaneously gained a more practical education. Due to the child learning large swathes of irrelevant and useless information it can be argued that the time would have been better spent with real facts and figures on the cards. To conclude, scientific evidence from Sweden and fantasy games such as Pokemon with little educational value are two clear reasons why children’s leisure activities should have an element of learning involved. Nowadays most green energy is becoming evermore prevalent in both developed and developing countries. Some argue they greatly reduce costs and are better for the environment, others believe they are a serious threat to energy security. Discuss both views and give your opinion. The world today uses more renewable energy than ever before since it contributes to the preservation of the environment and is economically sound; however, some argue that green energy could undermine the reliability of the global supply as a result of its dependency on climatic and meteorological phenomena. This essay will examine both views, but personally, I strongly advocate the adoption of renewable sources of energy. On the one hand, opponents of renewables claim that the world could face disruptions to the power supply should they be fully adopted. This is largely due to the fact that many green energy technologies currently in use depend on changeable and unpredictable phenomena such as wind, rain and cloud cover. To take the fastest growing sector as an example, solar panels can only be used in the presence of strong and direct sunlight, and although the problem of directness has already been somewhat solved with moving panel arrays, a cloudy few days could still result in a blackout if we depended entirely on solar power; something that is unlikely to occur today given current oil stockpiles. However, fossil fuels are a larger threat to energy security since they are certainly finite in quantity, whereas renewable energy is effectively infinite; once the Earth’s oil is depleted, there will be no energy security without green energy technologies. Furthermore, problems of unpredictability can be mitigated by improving battery technologies (to create a larger buffer), building more renewable energy generators (to increase supply during ideal conditions) and improving current technologies (to increase efficiency), such as in the moving solar panel example. Proponents of renewables therefore claim that they are the most economically sound option. To conclude, while many may believe that green energy technologies are a threat to energy security, the fossil fuels they frequently promote are a greater threat, and renewables are in fact the only sound option, both economically and environmentally. Some people are of the opinion that children should be rewarded for good behaviour. Others think they should be punished for bad behaviour. Discuss both views and give your personal opinion and reasons. The debate over a child's moral education is difficult due to the various view points each party holds. The question of discipline is exceptionally important, moreover whether to treat good behaviour with a neutral attitude or to just focus on correcting incorrect actions. My personal opinion is that any positive actions ought to be immediately recognised by the parent and vice versa for negative conduct. This balanced approach makes for a more positive outcome for both the child and family. Firstly rewarding a good act immediately signals a positive reaction in the child's brain which should encourage the child to want to behave similar in the future. Failure to recognise such behaviour leaves the child with the same emotional feeling as if they had done nothing. Therefore rewarding the child regularly for good behaviour enforces the action making it more likely to repeat itself in the future. Secondly punishing the son or daughter is also necessary, failure to discipline could have serious consequences in the future. For example if a child has no clear concept of respect for elders or authority it is quite possible to encounter more serious problems later in life. This pattern is prevalent in marginal neighbourhoods throughout the world. Therefore it is essential to immediately discipline the child whenever witnessing an unruly act so as to enforce the correct behaviour from an early age. To conclude both bad and good actions need to be recognised and dealt with immediately to correct or encourage the future actions. Failure to do either of these could result in a less fortunate life or a youth who rarely performs any good acts for anyone. Therefore it is critical that both types of behaviour are recognised dealt with accordingly for the benefit of the child in the future. Some people think that keeping pets is good for children while others think it is dangerous and unhealthy. Which opinion do you agree with? Discuss both options and give examples. In recent times, pet related injuries and mortalities have sparked heated debates about whether it is healthy for children to be around pets. In this essay I shall argue that such dangers are overemphasised and that children receive substantive psychological benefits through having pets. To begin with, although exotic pets (e.g. snakes, spiders, apes, etc.) have been known to occasionally hurt and even kill children, such incidents are so statistically rare as to be negligible. This is because the overwhelming majority of children have non-lethal cats, dogs, fish, rodents and rabbits for pets. For example The Child Safety Institute found that over 90% of children owned the aforementioned pets, and professed that they had never felt in the least bit endangered by them. Seen in this light, it is clearly unfounded to claim that pets present any physical danger to children. Secondly, pets can impact positively upon child psychology. This is because young pet owners frequently empathise with their pets and perform a diverse range of actions to maintain their well being (e.g. feeding, grooming, administering medicine, etc). For example, the Cambridge Developmental Psychology Unit found that children who had grown up with pets were 30% less likely to bully others and resolve conflicts through aggression. Consequently, it is undeniable that a child’s pro- sociality and mental health can be improved through exposure to pets. In conclusion, the cited evidence provides strong support for the view that children owning pets is a good thing. In the future, as more laws are introduced to ban the ownership of illegally acquired exotic pets, this viewpoint will no doubt surge in popularity. Some people think that secondary school children should study international news as one of the school subjects. Other people think that it is a waste of valuable school time. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. The importance of global media appears to increase year after year, so much so there have been calls to introduce news channels into the classroom. I believe this to be politically dangerous and potentially damaging due to the nature of international media. Firstly, considering the importance education has in a modern society, it is extremely worrying and dangerous to even consider substituting school subjects with international news. This is because the danger lies in choosing a correct, balanced, unbiased and neutral news source, if one even exists. For example if a child spent their school days watching FOX NEWS, they would potentially have a skewed opinion of the world due to its unabashed right-wing credentials. Therefore, changing a child's information diet from traditional subjects such as music, PE, or geography to watching a potentially partisan news channel is an extremely worrying and risky idea. Secondly, if international news were to become a new subject it could have a detrimental emotional impact on young minds. This is because in general the majority of news is of a negative nature, hence the expression, "If it bleeds, it leads". Whether the development of modern technology should be permitted to advance unhindered, or improved only with specific regard to human need, is a contentious issue. Since learning to use new technologies strengthens intellect, I believe that new devices should be developed without limits in order to challenge people. The achievements of humanity over the last century have only been made possible by the development of modern technology. Driven by the need to discover, people have created countless innovations in fields such as electronics, medicine and engineering which have improved the lives of billions. Additionally, many key discoveries throughout history were made while investigating something else entirely, such as with penicillin or the microwave oven. Establishing controls over what may or may not be investigated could therefore severely limit new discoveries. This style of innovation also provides intellectual benefits for both the inventor and the consumer, since both must work hard in order to either create or use the new device. A constant flow of new discoveries maintains mental stimulation amongst those who choose to make use of them. The computer, for example, has enabled humans to achieve remarkable things, but only after we adapted our behaviour and learned to use it fully. Also, those people who have maintained a good degree of computer literacy are now able to seek the best professional opportunities, which is further known to be intellectually beneficial. In conclusion, I believe that technology should be allowed to develop freely and that humans should adapt their behaviour to emerging discoveries. This will keep us intellectually strong and ensure that the maximum good can come from scientific endeavour. Do copyright laws limit creativity or reward it? Would society function better without such rules and regulations? It is supposed by many that copyright laws may be counterproductive and could hinder creative endeavour; however, personally, I disagree with this idea and opine strongly that the protection of intellectual property is crucial to a well- functioning society, and, in fact, encourages the production of further works by providing a framework within which innovators may be adequately rewarded for their efforts. Copyright regulations may prevent people from expanding on existing ideas, but a key purpose of such rules is to ensure that new ideas are sufficiently original to warrant financial reward. It is unlikely that members of the public could discern an original piece from a fraud, and so the support of the courts is necessary in order to uphold standards of originality. The US federal government states, for instance, that such laws exist to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good, and to ensure reasonable return to authors and inventors. Through this process, the law establishes incentives for producing new works, which in turn encourages learning, progress, and development. Without such regulations, individuals would be free to copy another’s work. As mentioned above, the general public cannot reasonably be expected to defend authenticity, and so would-be fraudsters may receive a financial reward comparable to that of the originator. Resultantly, in countries with substandard protections for artists, for example, creative output is consistently and considerably lower than that of nations with strong intellectual property regulations since the genuine owner of the work is afforded little protection or reward. If we accept that more creative output is good for society, then copyright law can be taken as the same. To conclude, copyright regulations are an essential tool for the promotion of creativity, and society tends to function better with their enforcement. Is it good for children to start using computers from an early age and spend long hours on them? Discuss the advantages and disadvantages. In recent years, children, like adults, have become increasingly exposed to computers. While some child psychologists have claimed that this is a good thing, others have claimed that it has an overwhelmingly detrimental impact on children. In this essay, I shall draw upon a number of studies in cognitive science and industrial psychology that reveal the positive and negative aspects of this phenomenon. To begin with, there are clearly reasons why computers do not allow children to develop long attention spans. This is because computers are packed with many supposedly child-friendly games that require minimal levels of concentration in order to be enjoyed. For example, a study by the New York Child Learning Association found that children who read from picture books were 50% less likely to get distracted than children who played educational computer games. Therefore computers almost certainly have a negative impact on young children. However, since the world has become heavily reliant on computers, there are also clearly advantages to exposing children to computers. This is because children with such exposure will stand a better chance of finding employment. For example, after being interviewed by Yale psychologists, over 70% of young office workers admitted that they had spent long hours on computers in their middle and late childhood years. Therefore it is clear that computer exposure can be beneficial to children. In conclusion, there are advantages and disadvantages to early computer exposure. However, if, in the future, the quality of educational gaming is increased, there is good reason to believe that these negative consequences will fall entirely away. Some people think high school graduates should travel or work for a period of time instead of going directly to study at university. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. It is common for a student to take a gap-year in a foreign country or even work for a year prior to university. Whether a student should engage in travelling or working before embarking on a formal qualification has been a topic of debate for various years. Firstly the advantages of such activities will be discussed, followed by all the economical disadvantages one encounters on such endeavours. The benefits of resisting university for a year to travel or work open the students mind to new worlds, such as having responsibility at work or learning a new language abroad. Having spent a year in Australia prior to university I learnt how to look for work, become responsible with finances and other essential life skills such as cooking. Upon starting university various tasks such as money management and employment were second nature thus allowing more time for studies. Without having gone abroad university life would undoubtedly be more challenging. The disadvantages are mainly cost related, the airfare, travel insurance, national insurance and personal living costs are large sums. However finding another opportunity to go abroad is difficult once the pattern of normal life is resumed. In addition it also an opportunity to experiment with different jobs before choosing a career at university. Therefore there is a considerable advantage of taking a year out before higher education. To conclude, the main disadvantages are the costs involved, however the benefits dramatically outweigh the disadvantages. Time should be spent wisely as it can never be recuperated unlike money which can be spent and earned. Some people like to travel outside their country. Others would rather travel to tourist spots in their own country first, before travelling abroad. Which do you prefer to do and why? Include specific details and examples to support your choice. Over the past few decades the international tourism industry has gone through a boom period. Cheap air travel, in particular, has allowed ordinary working class people to travel to more international destinations than ever before. In this essay, I shall refer to number of sociological studies to show why – contrary to popular opinion – domestic travel should initially take precedence over international travel. To begin with, people’s knowledge of their own countries and culture has grown increasingly sketchy. This is largely because foreign brands, television shows and cultural objects flood local markets. For example, The Asian Cultural Society found that Japanese teenagers knew more about American television series than 19th Century Japanese woodcuts. It should therefore be clear that citizens need to know much more about their own countries, and that visits to local cultural centres should occur before visits to remote countries. Secondly, people reap high economic benefits if they are well-travelled in their country of birth. This is because local travel, in particular, opens up business opportunities. For example, the Korean Society for Entrepreneurship found that 40% of successful start-up companies were run by individuals who had travelled extensively in Korea and sniffed out small openings in developmentally neglected areas. Seen in this light, local travel can also be of vital economic significance To conclude, although few would argue outright against foreign travel, there are certainly reasons why domestic travel is initially preferable. In the future, as some of the hype surrounding foreign travel dies down, these reasons will no doubt appear more attractive and conspicuous. Women can do everything that men can and they even do it better. They also can do many things that men cannot. But it is a fact that their work is not appreciated as much as men's, although they have to sacrifice a lot for their family and career. It is said: "A woman's place is in the home." What do you think? Women and men have had different roles in the community since the beginning. Under modern pretexts these differences are slowly converging. However, due to the genetic inheritance and socio-demographic components, these differences do exist. Firstly, men are undoubtedly better adapted genetically to perform physical tasks. Therefore, the assumption that women can match men in everything is clearly flawed. The difference between their physical abilities is clearly demonstrated in the sporting arena. Take, for example, the Olympics or any international sporting event. It can be clearly seen that in these competitions the genders are separated due to inherent differences between the sexes. Secondly, it has been argued that women are less appreciated in society due to their traditional roles in the home. This statement is true to a certain extent because it largely depends on the society. In certain traditional societies in Africa, females working is frowned upon and is seen as neglecting the family, whereas in Afghanistan, in general, females are allowed to do little else but stay at home, being a housewife. Consequently a woman’s value is largely dictated by the society, culture and history. Nevertheless, to state that her place is in the home is widely considered sexist in modern western societies. To conclude, differences do certainly exist; however, these are largely through nature. Also, the role women may have is usually dictated by other factors, such as, religion or society, not ability. Obesity is a serious problem in many countries, especially in rich countries. Discuss ways to solve the problem. Provide specific reasons and examples to support your answer. With the advent of urbanisation and the rise in popularity of fast food, there have been accompanying issues with rising obesity rates – especially in developed countries like England and the USA. After providing a careful analysis of why obesity has risen so sharply in these countries, I shall suggest a number of ways in which the obesity epidemic can be ameliorated. To begin with, it should be unsurprising that fast food is incredibly popular in wealthy countries (like England and the USA). Due to the high levels of development in these countries, consumers possess more money and can therefore consume vast amounts of fast food without seriously diminishing their income. For example, the American Dietary Association found that (compared to the average Indian household), the average American household has a six times larger budget for food per month. Consequently, it is to be expected that obesity rates are much higher in countries with larger amounts of wealth. However, despite the severity of the obesity problem, there are a number of ways in which developed countries could battle it more effectively. Firstly, developed governments could put far more pressure on fast food outlets to provide healthy alternatives to hamburgers, french fries and soft drinks. Secondly, public exercise initiatives could be advertised and promoted far more vigorously. Lastly, modules that inform teenagers about healthy dietary requirements could be taught at schools. People retiring older can lead to conflict between individuals and an increased burden on society generally. For the young, the process of fully integrating older people into society can be challenging. For example, many older people have quieter lifestyles and disputes may arise with younger individuals who are in the habit of hosting loud parties or coming home late at night, particularly in cases where young people are taking care of older relatives. The strain on society can also be great as older people require more medical support to treat conditions ranging from arthritis to cancer to heart disease. This translates to a greater proportion of taxes going to the older generation and can foster societal resentment and ageism. The best fixes for these problems can be achieved by governments. Firstly, governments can ease the integration of generations by providing better retirements plans for individuals. For example, in the United States, social security benefits are rarely enough to cover retirement and so many must depend on their children. As for society, governments must be more conscientious in planning for more substantial medical expenses. The government should anticipate this trend only continuing in the future and set aside funds to research and apply advanced treatments for retired citizens well into their 80s. These measures combined would alleviate some of the weight of supporting older populations. In conclusion, the pressures resulting from growth in the average life span can be countered with forward-thinking governmental policy. This will only become more important in the future as people live even longer. Linking words firstly, furthermore, moreover, however, whereas, it, they, which, this, that, and, but, because, while, for example Illustration Thus, for example, for instance, namely, to illustrate, in other words, in particular, specifically, such as. Contrast On the contrary, contrarily, notwithstanding, but, however, nevertheless, in spite of, in contrast, yet, on one hand, on the other hand, rather, or, nor, conversely, at the same time, while this may be true. Addition And, in addition to, furthermore, moreover, besides, than, too, also, both-and, another, equally important, first, second, etc., again, further, last, finally, not only-but also, as well as, in the second place, next, likewise, similarly, in fact, as a result, consequently, in the same way, for example, for instance, however, thus, therefore, otherwise. Time After, afterward, before, then, once, next, last, at last, at length, first, second, etc., at first, formerly, rarely, usually, another, finally, soon, meanwhile, at the same time, for a minute, hour, day, etc., during the morning, day, week, etc., most important, later, ordinarily, to begin with, afterwards, generally, in order to, subsequently, previously, in the meantime, immediately, eventually, concurrently, simultaneously. Concession Although, at any rate, at least, still, thought, even though, granted that, while it may be true, in spite of, of course. Similarity or Comparison Similarly, likewise, in like fashion, in like manner, analogous to. Emphasis Above all, indeed, truly, of course, certainly, surely, in fact, really, in truth, again, besides, also, furthermore, in addition. Details Specifically, especially, in particular, to explain, to list, to enumerate, in detail, namely, including. Examples For example, for instance, to illustrate, thus, in other words, as an illustration, in particular. Consequence or Result So that, with the result that, thus, consequently, hence, accordingly, for this reason, therefore, so, because, since, due to, as a result, in other words, then. Summary Therefore, finally, consequently, thus, in short, in conclusion, in brief, as a result, accordingly. Suggestion For this purpose, to this end, with this in mind, with this purpose in mind, therefore.