Some governments try to control the way a national language is used. For example, they may restrict the introduction of foreign words, or use of dialects, or they may demand that a certain language be used in schools.
What are the benefits and disadvantages of these policies? Do you think they can ever be effective?

Language is linked to the identity of a nation, and speakers of a common language share many things, but does this give governments the right to restrict the way a language is used or taught?

It can be argued that a nation maintains its culture through its language, and so there is a need to restrict the use of foreign words and changes in pronunciation. However, in reality this approach is fruitless, because language is a living thing and it is impossible to stop it from changing. This policy has been tried in some countries but it never works. People, especially young people, will use the language that they hear round them, and which separates them from others; stopping the use of some words will only make them appear more attractive.

As for spelling, we all know that the English system is irregular and, I believe, it would benefit from simplification so that children and other learners do not waste time learning to read and write. On the other hand, some people may feel, perhaps rightly, that it is important to keep the original spelling of words as a link with the past and this view is also held by speakers of languages which do not use the Roman alphabet.

While it is important for people to speak who speak a minority language to be able to learn and use that language to be able to learn and use that language, it is practical for education to be in a common language. This creates national pride and links people within the society. Realistically, schools are the best place for this to start.

Ultimately, there is a role for governments to play in the area of language planning, particularly in education, but at no time should governments impose regulations which restrict people's linguistic freedom.

Some people prefer to spend their lives doing the same things and avoiding change. Others, however, think that change is always a good thing.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Over the last half century the pace of change in the life of human beings has increased beyond our wildest expectations. This has been driven by technological and scientific breakthroughs that are changing the whole way we view the world on an almost daily basis. This means that change is not always a personal option, but an inescapable fact of life, and we need to constantly adapt to keep pace with it.

Those people who believe they have achieved some security by doing the same, familiar things are living in denial. Even when people believe they are resisting change themselves, they cannot stop the world around them from changing. Sooner or later they will find that the familiar jobs no longer exist, or that the ‘safe’ patterns of behaviour are no longer appropriate.

However, reaching the conclusion that change is inevitable is not the same as assuming that
‘change is always for the better’. Unfortunately, it is not always the case that new things are
promoted because they have good impacts for the majority of people. A lot of innovations are made with the aim of making money for a few. This is because it is the rich and powerful people in our society who are able to impose changes (such as in working conditions or property developments) that are in their own interests.

In conclusion, I would say that change can be stimulating and energising for individuals when they pursue it themselves, but that all change, including that which is imposed on people, does not necessarily have good outcomes.

Using a computer every day can have more negative than positive effects on your children.
Do you agree or disagree?

I tend to agree that young children can be negatively affected by too much time spent on the
computer every day. This is partly because sitting in front of a screen for too long can be damaging to both the eyes and the physical posture of a young child, regardless of what they are using the computer for.

However, the main concern is about the type of computer activities that attract children. These are often electronic games that tend to be very intense and rather violent. The player is usually the ‘hero’ of the game and too much exposure can encourage children to be self-centred and
insensitive to others.

Even when children use a computer for other purposes, such as getting information or emailing
friends, it is no substitute for human interaction. Spending time with other children and sharing non-virtual experiences is an important part of a child's development that cannot be provided by a computer.

In spite of this, the obvious benefits of computer skills for young children cannot be denied. Their adult world will be changing constantly in terms of technology and the Internet is the key to all the knowledge and information available in the world today. Therefore it is important that children learn at an early age to use the equipment enthusiastically and with confidence as they will need these skills throughout their studies and working lives.

I think the main point is to make sure that young children do not overuse computers. Parents must ensure that their children learn to enjoy other kinds of activity and not simply sit at home, learning to live in a virtual world.

Successful sports professionals can earn a great deal more money than people in other important professions. Some people think this is fully justified while others think it is unfair.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

As a result of constant media attention, sports professionals in my country have become stars and celebrities, and those at the top are paid huge salaries. Just like movie stars, they live extravagant lifestyles with huge houses and cars.

Many people find their rewards unfair, especially when comparing these super salaries with those of top surgeons or research scientists, or even leading politicians who have the responsibility of governing the country. However, sports salaries are not determined by considering the contribution to society a person makes, or the level of responsibility he or she holds. Instead, they reflect the public popularity of sport in general and the level of public support that successful stars can generate. So the notion of ‘fairness’ is not the issue.

Those who feel that sports stars’ salaries are justified might argue that the number of professionals with real talent are very few, and the money is a recognition of the skills and dedication a person needs to be successful. Competition is constant and a player is tested every time they perform in their relatively short career. The pressure from the media is intense and there is little privacy out of the spotlight. So all of these factors may justify the huge earnings.

Personally, I think that the amount of money such sports stars make is more justified than the huge earnings of movie stars, but at the same time, it indicates that our society places more value on sport than on more essential professions and achievements.

Recycling is now an essential measure: it is time for everyone in society to become more responsible towards the environment.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

It is hard to deny the importance of recycling in the modern world. One has only to visit the nearest landfill site to understand the scale of the problem. Yet at the same time, recycling is not always the cheapest option. Nor is it the only issue with respect to the environment.

On the one hand, there is a lot that can be done in terms of household recycling. Kerbside collections of newspapers, bottles and cans trim the amount of rubbish that has to be consigned to landfill. Some councils even collect plastic bottles and recycle them, although it is commonly believed that the recycling of plastic is too costly a process.

Many people are lazy when it comes to recycling and opt to throw everything away instead of separating out materials to be recycled. To counteract this, fines or taxes may have to be introduced. A new tax has also been suggested on non-returnable bottles.

At the same time, there are other pollutants of our planet that have nothing to do with waste disposal. Air travel is now widely seen as the biggest threat to the environment and, unless higher taxes are put on aviation fuel, the situation will get worse. However, this kind of decision should be taken in an international forum and it is vital that the world's largest nations (and heaviest users of fossil fuels) join this discussion.

It is hoped that our politicians will come together and agree upon a viable strategy for the world which will allow future generations to enjoy the beauty and diversity of our planet.

Do you believe that societies ought to enforce capital punishment or are there alternative forms of punishment that would be better used?

Capital punishment is the killing of a criminal for a crime that he has committed. Previously most countries employed this method of punishment but nowadays it is much less widely used. I personally do not believe that societies today should use capital punishment and I also believe that there are alternative punishments that can be used.

My main argument against capital punishment is that I believe we do not have the right to kill another human being regardless of the crime. I don't believe in the old religious maxim of "an eye for an eye." Modern societies shouldn't turn to such barbaric punishments.

Another argument against capital punishment is that people can be wrongly convicted and executed. If a man is in prison, he can be released if later proved not guilty. If he is dead, there is nothing that can be done. In the UK, a group of supposed terrorists were convicted of murder in Birmingham in the 1970s. They were proved innocent about 15 years later and released. If they had been executed, innocent people would have died.

There are alternative punishments available. For bad crimes prison life sentences can be given with criminals imprisoned for the rest of their lives. Also a lot of horrific crimes are committed by people who are mentally sick. These people are not responsible for their actions and can be kept safely and permanently in secure hospitals. Yes, this costs a lot more but I believe it is the duty of society to do this.

There are arguments for capital punishment. Many people feel its threat stops serious crime and that criminals deserve nothing less. It's cheaper and keeps the prisons manageable. I can understand this point of view but I cannot agree with it.

So, in conclusion, I don't believe in capital punishment, as there are less barbaric alternatives available. We can opt for these to avoid horrific mistakes and make modern society a more humane one.

"A zoo has no useful purpose."
Do you agree or disagree?

I think that the question about whether a zoo has a useful purpose is one that is open for debate. Nowadays, it is a topical question. Some people believe that zoos are essential while other people believe that a zoo has no useful purpose and that people should observe wild animals in their natural habitat. Personally, I think that both aspects of this situation have their relative advantages. In the following paragraphs I will analyse these points and present my own view in favour of animals being allowed to stay in the wild.

From the one side, a zoo has many benefits for people. First of all, children can learn about animals not only from books and TV programs but from actually observing them "live". They can see animals, touch them and even feed them. I think it is an amazing experience for a child. He gains more knowledge and experience from this "communication" with the animals. Second of all, a zoo is a perfect place for people to see many animals that most do not get the chance to see during their lifetimes.

However, I keep asking myself "what kind of benefits do wild animals get from a zoo?" and unfortunately, I cannot find a single one. I think that wild animals should live in their natural environment. Moreover, I think that we should learn about them through TV programmes whilst sitting in our favourite chairs, or people who like danger should try to observe them in their native environment. I strongly believe that animals are not toys. I know that most zoos try to keep their animals in an environment similar to their native one, but they cannot give these creatures as much freedom as Mother Nature intended.

To sum up, I think that wild animals should not be kept in a zoo. Personally, I enjoy watching "Discovery Channel" far more than watching a black bear trying desperately to hide from the scorching sun in a Texas zoo.

In general, people do not have such a close relationship with their neighbours as they did in the past. Why is this so, and what can be done to improve contact between neighbours?

In the past, neighbours formed an important part of people's social lives and they helped them when they had problems. Nowadays, people often do not even know their neighbours and in consequence they live much more isolated lives.

There are a number of reasons why we have less contact with our neighbours. Firstly, our lifestyles are more mobile. This means people may change the area where they live quite frequently and this cuses their relationships with their neighbours to be more superficial. Secondly, nowadays people often live and work in different places. This leads to people forming closer relationships with work colleagues than the ones they have with their neighbours. Finally, modern lifestyles make us spend more time inside our houses watching television, and when we go out, we travel by car. Consequently, we do not speak to the people in our neighbourhood so much.

There are a number of ways in which I think contact between neighbours can be improved. First of all, local authorities can provide communal areas such as play grounds for children and community halls so that there are places where neighbours can meet and make friends. Next, I think that when new neighbours come to a street, the people living there ought to introduce themselves and welcome them. Lastly, people living in a street or small district should form neighbourhood associations and meet regularly to discuss the things which affect them.

In conclusion, these suggestions will probably not make neighbours as important in our lives as they were in the past. However, they will help our relationships with our neighbours to become more useful and valuable.

"The attitude of parents to the education of their children is more important than the quality of schools and teachers in producing well-educated people."
Do you agree?

The education of a child is significantly affected by both the attitude of the parents and the quality of the child's school and teachers. I would not say, however, that the parents' attitude is necessarily the more important of these two factors.

A good parental attitude definitely helps a child's school progress. Studies have shown that Asian students are often higher achievers in school than their American counterparts because Asian parents usually take a more active interest in their children's education. Educationally minded parents can in fact compensate to a certain extent for a poor quality school or teachers. Such parents might provide extra work at home, encourage the child to read more or study by himself or herself. Concerned parents may even hire the services of a tutor.

On the other hand, educationally minded parents arc usually not enough to ensure the good education of a child. Parents often don't have the resources of a good school, or the collective knowledge and training of a good teaching staff. Furthermore, time or money may limit what the well intentioned parent can actually do for the child's education in practical terms.

Consequently, although parental attitude and quality of school and staff are both important to a child's education, I don't feel that one is necessarily more important than the other. Perhaps ironically, it is usually the children of educationally minded parents that end up being sent to good schools with good teachers.

"Human beings are rapidly destroying the planet Earth."
Do you agree?

Many people believe that human beings arc destroying the planet Earth. I have to agree with this statement and I believe there is plenty of evidence for it if we look at some of man's agricultural and industrial practices. In addition, the use of nuclear energy further increases the danger to the world.

Man's agricultural practices arc severely damaging the environment. The incorrect use of land causes the formation of deserts; this is a particularly serious problem in Australia and the USA. Diversion of water from lakes and rivers for irrigation can also cause severe problems. The use of water from the Aral sea in the Soviet Union is an example of this.

Industrial wastes have caused critical pollution of water and the atmosphere. Atmospheric pollution has resulted in the 'greenhouse effect' — a phenomenon that is resulting in a dangerous increase in the temperature of the world. Similarly chemical pollution is damaging the ozone layer of the Earth. This results in dangerous ultraviolet rays entering the Earth's atmosphere.

Nuclear power also poses serious problems. One nuclear bomb can have devastating long-term effects. Even if nuclear power is used for peaceful purposes, the wastes are so toxic and so long-lasting that we are endangering the lives of generations to come.

Some people may think that improved technology will solve the problems of the Earth. Others believe that man will eventually leam to cooperate and use resources intelligently. However, I think this is naive, wishful thinking, and from all the evidence, man is destroying the Earth.

Should parents be obliged to immunise their children against common childhood diseases? Or do individuals have the right to choose not to immunise their children?

Essay 1
Some people argue that the state does not have the right to make parents immunise their children. However, I feel the question is not whether they should immunise but whether, as members of society, they have the right not to.

Preventative medicine has proved to be the most effective way of reducing the incidence of fatal childhood diseases. As a result of the widespread practice of immunising young children in our society, many lives have been saved and the diseases have been reduced to almost zero.

In previous centuries children died from ordinary illnesses such as influenza and tuberculosis and because few people had immunity, the diseases spread easily. Diseases such as dysentery were the result of poor hygiene but these have long been eradicated since the arrival of good
sanitation and clean water. Nobody would suggest that we should reverse this good practice now because dysentery has been wiped out.

Serious diseases such as polio and smallpox have also been eradicated through national immunisation programmes. In consequence, children not immunised are far less at risk in this disease-free society than they would otherwise be. Parents choosing not to immunise are relying on the fact that the diseases have already been eradicated. If the number of parents choosing
not to immunise increased, there would be a similar increase in the risk of the diseases returning.

Immunisation is not an issue like seatbelts which affects only the individual. A decision not to immunise will have widespread repercussions for the whole of society and for this reason, I do not believe that individuals have the right to stand aside. In my opinion immunisation should be obligatory.

Essay 2
The issue of whether we should force parents to immunise their children against common diseases is, in my opinion, a social rather than a medical question. Since we are free to choose what we expose our bodies to in the way of food, drink, or religion for that matter, why should the question of medical 'treatment' be any different?

Medical researchers and governments are primarily interested in overall statistics and trends and in money-saving schemes which fail to take into consideration the individual's concerns and rights. While immunisation against diseases such as tetanus and whooping cough may be effective, little information is released about the harmful effects of vaccinations which can
sometimes result in stunted growth or even death.

The body is designed to resist disease and to create its own natural immunity through contact with that disease. So when children are given artificial immunity, we create a vulnerable society which is entirely dependent on immunisation. In the event that mass immunisation programmes were to cease, the society as a whole would be more at risk than ever before.

In addition there is the issue of the rights of the individual. As members of a society, why should we be obliged to subject our children to this potentially harmful practice? Some people may also be against immunisation on religious grounds and their needs must also be considered.

For these reasons I feel strongly that immunisation programmes should not be obligatory and that the individual should have the right to choose whether or not to participate.

News editors decide what to broadcast on television and what to print in newspapers. What factors do you think influence these decisions? Do we become used to bad news? Would it he better if more good news was reported?

It has often been said that “Good news is bad news” because it does not sell newspapers. A radio station that once decided to present only good news soon found that it had gone out of business for lack of listeners. Bad news on the other hand is so common that in order to cope with it, we often simply ignore it. We have become immune to bad news and the newspapers and radio stations are aware of this.

While newspapers and TV stations may aim to report world events accurately, be they natural or human disasters, political events or the horrors of war, it is also true that their main objective is to sell newspapers and attract listeners and viewers to their stations. For this reason TV and radio stations attempt to reflect the flavour of their station by providing news broadcasts tailor made to suit their listeners’ preferences. Programmes specialising in pop music or TV soap operas focus more on local news, home issues and up to date traffic reports. The more serious stations and newspapers like to provide “so called” objective news reports with editorial comment aimed at analysing the situation.

If it is true, then, that newspapers and TV stations are tailoring their news to their readers’ and viewers’ requirements, how can they possibly be reporting real world events in an honest and objective light? Many radio and TV stations do, in fact, report items of good news but they no longer call this news. They refer to these as human interest stories and package them in programmes specialising, for instance, in consumer affairs or local issues. Good news now comes to us in the form of documentaries the fight against children’s cancer or AIDS, or the latest developments in the fight to save the planet from environmental pollution.