tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57704835922126816082024-02-20T08:46:15.027-08:00IELTS EssaysModel essays suitable for IELTS Writing preparation for both General Training and Academic modules.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-834235704211713512008-01-05T21:03:00.000-08:002008-01-05T21:10:08.371-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">What are the benefits and disadvantages of these policies? Do you think they can ever be effective?</span><br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-24947828446202570262008-01-04T01:07:00.000-08:002008-01-04T01:30:21.546-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Some people prefer to spend their lives doing the same things and avoiding change. Others, however, think </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">that change is always a good thing. </span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. </span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />However, reaching the conclusion that change is inevitable is not the same as assuming that<br />‘change is always for the better’. Unfortunately, it is not always the case that new things are<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-62359364243037136942008-01-04T00:55:00.000-08:002008-01-04T01:06:47.086-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Using a computer every day can have more negative than positive effects on your children. </span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Do you agree or disagree?</span><br /><br />I tend to agree that young children can be negatively affected by too much time spent on the<br />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.<br /><br />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<br />insensitive to others.<br /><br />Even when children use a computer for other purposes, such as getting information or emailing<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-23942616195012927992008-01-04T00:50:00.000-08:002008-01-04T00:54:15.571-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Successful sports professionals can earn a great deal more money than people in other important professions. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Some people think this is fully justified while others think it is unfair.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-49510517269143893952008-01-04T00:23:00.000-08:002008-01-04T00:47:52.402-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Recycling is now an essential measure: it is time for everyone in society to become more responsible towards the environment.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-80794071371766168762008-01-04T00:17:00.000-08:002008-01-04T00:23:06.067-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Do you believe that societies ought to enforce capital punishment or are there alternative forms of punishment that would be better used?</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-28426210915835167042008-01-03T06:41:00.000-08:002008-01-03T07:03:06.377-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">"A zoo has no useful purpose."</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Do you agree or disagree?</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-36945025058284945362008-01-03T06:38:00.000-08:002008-01-03T06:41:23.470-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">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?</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-73489137017715437002008-01-03T06:33:00.000-08:002008-01-03T06:38:48.604-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">"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."</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Do you agree?</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-39694291804319375332008-01-03T06:30:00.000-08:002008-01-03T06:32:40.877-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">"Human beings are rapidly destroying the planet Earth."</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Do you agree?</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /> <br />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.<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-6745428523508766572008-01-03T06:13:00.000-08:002008-01-03T06:24:12.225-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Should parents be obliged to immunise their children against common </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">childhood diseases? Or do individuals have the right to choose not to </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">immunise their children?</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Essay 1</span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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<br />sanitation and clean water. Nobody would suggest that we should reverse this good practice now because dysentery has been wiped out.<br /><br />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<br />not to immunise increased, there would be a similar increase in the risk of the diseases returning.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Essay 2</span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span>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?<br /><br />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<br />sometimes result in stunted growth or even death.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-72059579506024093222008-01-03T06:03:00.000-08:002008-01-03T06:06:37.984-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">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?</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-8417412121353824332007-11-22T18:03:00.000-08:002007-11-22T18:17:15.525-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Many people believe that television programs are of no value for children. Do you agree? Why or why not?</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Provide reasons and examples to support your response.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>Televisual media has become a pervasive force in the lives of families around the world today. Yet, a central question remains regarding whether watching television is harmful or beneficial for children. An analysis of this question reveals that television programs present three major concerns in the case of children, including depictions of violence, the use of profane language, and the representation of poor moral role models.<br /><br />Television programs that portray violence are a paramount concern for parents nowadays. Recent research has shown that children may commit acts of violence because they wish to emulate the behaviour that they see on television. This is especially true when violent acts are committed by well-known action “heroes.” In addition, television programs show cartoon figures, as well as actors, committing violent acts. Using comic situations to depict violent themes causes further problems with the way in which young people view violence.<br /><br />Television programs that contain profane or disrespectful language also worry parents with young children. Because censorship laws have relaxed over the past few decades, it has become very common for television programs of each and every kind to show characters expressing impolite, rude, and insulting utterances to one another. Bearing resemblance to the case of portrayals of violence, children unfortunately often try to imitate these actions they watch on their television screens.<br /><br />Finally, some parents are upset about the moral behaviour depicted on television. As they struggle to teach their children moral and ethical values, parents might despair about the lack of morals and ethics represented in some of the so-called role models on television. For instance, certain characters not only have no remorse for their immoral actions, but also frequently go unpunished by larger society.<br /><br />Because of these factors, many parents believe that television programs send their youth the wrong kinds of messages. The emulation of this poor behaviour by their children is something they wish to avoid at all costs, and they have accordingly decided to ban television in their households for these reasons.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-79993959175666037822007-11-22T17:55:00.000-08:002007-11-22T17:57:42.623-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">It has been more than 30 years since man first landed on the moon. Some people think that space research is a waste of money.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Discuss.<br /><br /></span>For over fifty years, a number of nations have been involved in the exploration of outer space. This research has been very costly, of course. Has this money been well-spent or wasted?<br /><br />Some people believe that all or most space research should be eliminated because of its incredible expense, not only in terms of money, but also in terms of scientific and human resources. These people point out the fact that it cost billions of dollars to send astronauts to the moon, but all they brought back were some worthless rocks. These people say that the money and effort now being wasted in outer space could be spent for homeless people, improving the education system, saving the environment, and finding cures for diseases.<br /><br />However, other people believe that space research has provided many benefits to mankind. They point out that hundreds of useful products, from personal computers to heart pacemakers to freeze-dried foods, are the direct or indirect results of space research. They say that weather and communication satellites, which are also products of space programs, have benefited people all over the globe. In addition to these practical benefits, supporters of the space program point to the scientific knowledge that has been acquired about the sun, the moon, the planets and even our own earth as a result of space research.<br /><br />I agree with those people who support space research and want it to continue. Space research, as shown, has already brought many benefits to humanity. Perhaps it will bring even more benefits in the future, ones that we can not even imagine now. Moreover, just as individual people need challenges to make their lives more interesting, I believe the human race itself needs a challenge, and I think that the peaceful exploration of outer space provides just such a challenge.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-50849360874453742172007-11-22T17:54:00.000-08:002007-11-22T17:55:34.233-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">It is generally acknowledged that families are now not as close as they used to be.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Give possible reasons and your recommendations.<br /><br /></span>There is much discussion nowadays as to whether or not the relation-ship between family members is as close as before. Diverse contributing factors can be identified. In the following, I would like to present my point of view.<br /><br />Great changes have taken place in family life along with the development of society. One of them is that the once-extended family tends to become smaller and smaller. Many children have to leave their parents at an early age to study or work elsewhere. As time passes, children become emotionally estranged from their parents.<br /><br />Compared with the past, social competition is becoming increasingly fierce. People are urged to concentrate their efforts upon work, so that they can achieve success, or at least a good standard of living. As a result, they can’t afford to spend their leisure hours with their families. The importance of bonds of kinship is gradually fading from their minds.<br /><br />In addition, the availability of various kinds of recreational facilities also diverts people from enjoying chats with the members of their families. Their free time is mostly occupied by watching TV, surfing the Internet or playing video games. They come to lose interest in communicating with the other members of their families.<br /><br />In view of such alienation within families, urgent steps must be taken, in my opinion. For members of families who live away from one another, regular contact on the phone can bring them the care that they need. Family reunions on holidays or other important occasions can make a difference as well. For those living together, it is a good idea to take some time off work or recreation periods to spend more time with each other. In the final analysis, a close family relationship can surely be maintained as long as we realize the significant role it plays in our lives and attach importance to it.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-60686799233428563462007-11-22T17:52:00.000-08:002007-11-22T17:53:27.030-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Television has had a significant influence on the culture of many societies. To what extent would you say that television has positively or negatively affected the cultural development of your society?</span><br /><br />It has been around forty years since television was first introduced into Australian households and people today still have mixed views on whether it has a positive or a negative influence on the society.<br /><br />Many people believe that television damages culture. It promotes the stronger cultures of countries such as Britain and North America and weakens the cultures of less wealthy countries. This is because the stronger, wealthier countries are able to assert their own culture by producing more programs that are shown widely around the world. These programs then influence people, particularly young people, in the countries where they are shown.<br /><br />Also, because television networks need to attract large audiences to secure their financial survival, they must produce programs which are interesting to a broad range of people. In Australia this range is very broad because we are a multicultural society and people of all ages like to watch television. To interest all these different people, most television programs are short in length, full of action and excitement, do not require much intelligence or knowledge to understand, and follow universal themes common to all cultures, such as love and crime. Television programs which concentrate on or develop themes pertinent to one particular culture are not so successful because they interest a smaller audience.<br /><br />Nevertheless we much acknowledge that television does have some positive effects on the cultures within a society as well. People who do not live within their own culture can, in a limited way, access it through the multicultural station on the television. For example, Aboriginal children who have grown up in white families, or migrants and international students living in Australia, can watch programs from their own culture on the television.<br /><br />In conclusion, I hold the view that television promotes and strengthens those cultures that are wealthy and influential while it weakens the cultures that are already in a weakened position.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-85356598531512261512007-11-20T00:27:00.000-08:002007-11-20T00:33:57.890-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Some people think that it is important to use leisure time for activities that improve the mind, such as reading and doing word puzzles. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Other people feel that it is important to rest the mind during leisure time.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">What is your opinion?</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>It is generally accepted that we all need leisure time to recover from the stresses of work and everyday life. Personally, I prefer to be active during this time, as I think this suits me better. However, what we do with our leisure time is up to us and no one can say that any particular activity is the best.<br /><br />Some people relax by watching movies, reading or surfing the internet. People who have physically demanding jobs may choose these types of activities. If you are a nurse or builder, you may feel that you don't want to do a five-kilometre run after work, because you are already physically tired.<br /><br />Other people do very sedentary jobs. Computer analysts, for example, may spend all day sitting in front of a computer screen. At the end of the working day, they may be keen to stretch their limbs and improve their health by swimming or going to the gym.<br /><br />Another factor that influences our choice of leisure pursuit is where we work. People who work indoors often prefer outdoor hobbies, whereas for people who work outdoors, the reverse may be true. I am a student myself and this involves a lot of sitting in lectures, so I need to get out into the fresh air afterwards.<br /><br />In any situation, the important thing is that people need to stay healthy by choosing what is best for them. The only wrong way to spend free time, in my view, is to have a sedentary job and then go home and watch television.<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-40236814610797898462007-11-20T00:25:00.001-08:002007-11-20T00:25:48.705-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">"Parents are the best teachers." Do you agree or disagree with this statement?</span><br /><br />Parents shape their children from the beginning of their children's lives. They teach their children values. They share their interests with them. They develop close emotional ties with them. Parents can be very important teachers in their children's lives; however, they are not always the best teachers.<br /><br />Parents may be too close to their children emotionally. For example, they may limit a child's freedom in the name of safety. A teacher may organize an educational trip to a big city, but a parent may think this trip is too dangerous. A school may want to take the children camping, but a parent may be afraid of the child getting hurt.<br /><br />Another problem is that parents sometimes expect their children's interests to be similar to their own. If the parents love science, they may try to force their child to love science too. But what if the child prefers art? If the parents enjoy sports, they may expect their child to participate on different teams. But what if the child prefers to read?<br /><br />Parents want to pass on their values to their children. However, things change. The children of today are growing up in a world different from their parents' world. Sometimes parents, especially older ones, can't keep up with rapid social or technological changes. A student who has friends of different races at school may find that his parents have narrower views. A student who loves computers may find that her parents don't understand or value the digital revolution.<br /><br />Parents are important teachers in our lives, but they aren't always the best teachers. Fortunately, we have many teachers in our lives. Our parents teach us, our teachers teach us, and we learn from our peers. Books and newspapers also teach us. All of them are valuable.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-4978234615609042092007-11-20T00:24:00.000-08:002007-11-20T00:26:50.075-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">We are becoming increasingly dependent on computers. They are used in businesses, hospitals, crime detection and even to fly planes. </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">What things will they be used for in the future? Is this dependence on computers a good thing or should we be more suspicious of their benefits?</span><br /><br />Computers are a relatively new invention. The first computers were built fifty years ago and it is only in the last thirty or so years that their influence has affected our everyday life. Personal computers were introduced as recently as the early eighties. In this short time they have made a tremendous impact on our lives. We are now so dependent on computers that it is hard to imagine what things would be like today without them. You have only got to go into a bank when their main computer is broken to appreciate the chaos that would occur if computers were suddenly removed world-wide.<br /><br />In the future computers will be used to create bigger and even more sophisticated computers. The prospects for this are quite alarming. They will be so complex that no individual could hope to understand how they work. They will bring a lot of benefits but they will also increase the potential for unimaginable chaos. They will, for example, be able to fly planes and they will be able to co ordinate the movements of several planes in the vicinity of an airport. Providing all the computers are working correctly nothing can go wrong. If one small program fails disaster.<br /><br />There is a certain inevitability that technology will progress and become increasingly complex. We should, however, ensure that we are still in a position where we are able to control technology. It will be all too easy to suddenly discover that technology is controlling us. By then it might be too late I believe that it is very important to be suspicious of the benefits that computers will bring and to make sure that we never become totally dependent on a completely technological world.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-6375960605221639262007-11-20T00:23:00.000-08:002007-11-20T00:24:40.393-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Smokers can cause themselves serious health problems. The choice to smoke is made freely and with knowledge of dangers. Smokers should therefore expect to pay more for medical treatment than non-smokers.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">To what extent do you agree with this statement?<br /><br /></span>Everyone has the choice of being a smoker or not. The people who choose to smoke do so knowing there is a risk of causing harmful damage to themselves. However, I do not entirely agree that these people should have to pay more to receive all the medical treatment they need.<br /><br />I think there are many situations in which a medical problem has nothing to do with whether a person smokes or not. In these cases, where an illness has no relation to smoking, then I believe that smokers should not be required to pay more than other people for their medical treatment. Most car accidents, for example, have no connection with smoking, and the people who are injured ought to have the same medical help, regardless of the cost. And what about the common flu - it does not seem justifiable to me that a smoker should have to pay more to see a doctor for an illness we can all contract.<br /><br />On the other hand, I agree that a smoker should pay more than a non-smoker for the necessary treatment of any condition which has been caused by smoking. The principle that people should take responsibility for their own actions is a good one. Consequently, if a person chooses to smoke knowing that this habit can cause serious health problems, then there is no reason why the community or an insurance company should have to pay for medical treatment for an illness which could have been avoided.<br /><br />In many countries, cigarette packets have a clear warning that smoking can cause health problems and so no smoker can claim not to know the danger. Lung cancer is sometimes a fatal disease and the treatment is both lengthy and expensive, and it is unfair for the smoker to expect the hospital or the community to carry the cost. In fact, it could also be argued that those who smoke in public should be asked to pay extra because of the illness caused to passive smokers.<br /><br />In conclusion, I feel that smokers should pay more in cases related to smoking, but for any other illness they should pay the same as anyone else.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-63307795174100657562007-11-19T17:03:00.000-08:002007-11-19T17:05:47.148-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Nowadays food has become easier to prepare. Has this change improved the way people live?</span><br /><br />Food is a basic part of life, so it follows that improved methods of food preparation have made our lives better. Nowadays we can prepare meals much faster than we could in the past. We can also enjoy a greater variety of food and eat more healthfully, all because of modern methods of food preparation.<br /><br />Microwave ovens have made it possible to prepare delicious food quickly. People these days rarely have time to shop and prepare meals the old-fashioned way. We live very fast lives. We are busy working, caring for our families travelling, playing sports, and many other things. Because of microwave ovens, we have time to enjoy a good meal with our family and then play soccer, go to a movie, study, or do anything else we want to afterwards.<br /><br />Modern methods of preserving food have made it possible to enjoy a wide variety of food. Because of refrigerators, freezers, canning, and freeze-drying, we can eat fruits and vegetables that come from far away places. We can prepare a meal one day and save the leftovers in the refrigerator or freezer to eat at another time. We can keep different kinds of food in the refrigerator. It is easy to always have food available and to be able to eat completely different meals every day.<br /><br />Healthful eating is easier now than it ever was. Because of modern transportation methods, fresh fruits and vegetables are available all year round. Modern kitchen appliances make it easy to prepare fruits and vegetables fro cooking. Bread machines make it possible to enjoy healthful, home-baked bread whenever we like. We can eat fresh and healthful food everyday because modern methods have made preparation easy.<br /><br />Our lifestyle is fast, but people still like good food. New food preparation methods have given us more choices. Today we can prepare food that is more convenient, healthier, and of greater variety than ever before.<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-53892584863216256382007-11-19T17:00:00.000-08:002007-11-19T17:02:51.402-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">It has been said, "Not everything that is learned is contained in books."</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Compare and contrast knowledge gained from experience with knowledge gained from books. In your opinion, which source is more important? Why?</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>"Experience is the best teacher" is an old cliché, but I agree with it. We can learn a lot of important things from books, but the most important lessons in life come from our own experiences. Throughout the different stages of life, from primary school to university to adulthood, experience teaches us many skills we need for life.<br /><br />As children in primary school, we learn facts and information from books, but that is not all we learn in school. On the playground we learn how to make friends. In our class work, we learn how it feels to succeed and what we do when we fail. We start to learn about the things we like to do and the things we don't. We don't learn these things from books, but from our experiences with our friends and classmates.<br /><br />In our university classes, we learn a lot of information and skills we will need for our future careers, but we also learn a lot that is not in our textbooks. In our daily lives both in class and out of class, we learn to make decisions for ourselves. We learn to take on responsibilities. We learn to get along with our classmates, our roommates, and our workmates. Our successes and failures help us develop skills we will need in our adult lives. They are skills that no book can teach us.<br /><br />Throughout our adulthood, experience remains a constant teacher. We may continue to read or take classes for professional development. However, our experiences at work, at home, and with our friends teach us more. The triumphs and disasters of our lives teach us how to improve our careers and also how to improve our relationships and how to be the person each one of us wants to be.<br /><br />Books teach us a lot, but there is a limit to what they teach. They can give us information or show us another person's experiences. These are valuable things, but the lessons we learn from our own experiences, from childhood through adulthood, are the most important ones we learn.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-45078594765777155052007-11-19T08:01:00.000-08:002007-11-19T17:05:34.973-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">As computers are being used more and more in education, there will soon be no role for teachers in the classroom.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Do you agree or disagree with this statement?</span><br /><br />There have been immense advances in technology in most aspects of people's lives, especially in the field of education. Nowadays, an increasing number of students rely on computers to research for information and to produce a perfect paper for school purposes. Others have decided to leave the original way of learning to get knowledge through online schools. These changes in the learning process have brought a special concern regarding the possible decrease of importance of teachers in the classroom.<br /><br />Some people believe the role of teachers started to fade because computers have been helping some students to progress in their studies quicker than when compared with an original classroom. For example, in the same classroom, students have different intellectual capacities, thus some would be tied to a slow advance in their studies because of others’ incapacity of understanding. In this way, pupils could progress in their acquisition of knowledge at their own pace using computers instead of learning from teachers.<br /><br />However, the presence of a teacher is essential for students because the human contact influences them in positive ways. Firstly, students realize that they are not dealing with a machine but with a human being who deserves attention and respect. They also learn the importance of studying in group and respect other students, which helps them to improve their social skills.<br /><br />Moreover, teachers are required in the learning process because they acknowledge some student's deficiencies and help them to solve their problems by repeating the same explanation, giving extra exercises or even suggesting a private tutor. Hence, students have a bigger chance of passing even the most difficult subjects.<br /><br />In conclusion, the role for teachers in the learning process is still very important and it will continue to be in the future because no machine can replace the benefits of human interaction.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-35437611708390722702007-11-19T07:59:00.000-08:002007-11-19T17:06:10.433-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Popular events like the football World Cup and other international sporting occasions are essential in easing international tensions and releasing patriotic emotions in a safe way.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>Every four years, the whole world stops to watch international sporting events such as the Olympics and the Football World Cup in which athletes show their best performance to make their country proud of them. These sporting occasions have proved to be helpful in easing international tensions in difficult times when powerful leaders were trying to control the world's economy and other governments were fighting over land.<br /><br />The Olympic Games are one of the best examples which prove how sporting events can bring nations together, at least temporarily. From ancient History, when Greeks and Romans would interrupt battles to participate in the games, to the more recent international disputes, when athletes from Palestine and Israel would forget their differences, compete pacifically and even embrace each other after an event. Moreover, these popular events have called the world's attention to the terrible consequences of wars; thus some leaders have tried to accept agreements to end their dispute and live peacefully.<br /><br />Similarly, international sporting events show benefits in some developing countries which live in a daily internal civil war. For example, Brazil has a high rate of unemployment, lack of education, hunger, crime, poverty and corruption which leads to an immense embarrassment of being Brazilian and a low self-esteem. However, when the Football World Cup starts, the Brazilian squad, which is considered the best team in the world, provokes an amazing feeling of pride in their country. Most people seem to forget all their problems and even the criminal activity decreases. They paint roads with the national colours, use wear the Brazilian team shirt and buy national flags. Moreover, the competition brings families and neighbours together and even rival gangs watch the games and celebrate peacefully.<br /><br />In conclusion, I believe that popular sporting events play an important role in decreasing international tensions and liberating patriotic feelings.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5770483592212681608.post-37739126646438889662007-11-19T07:57:00.000-08:002007-11-19T17:06:35.402-08:00<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Many people believe that women make better parents than men and that this is why they have the greater role in raising children in most societies. Others claim that men are just as good as women at parenting.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Discuss.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>The view that women are better parents than men has shown itself to be true throughout history. This is not to say that men are not of importance in child- rearing indeed, they are most necessary if children are to appreciate fully the roles of both sexes. But women have proven themselves superior parents as a result of their conditioning, their less aggressive natures and their generally better communication skills.<br /><br />From the time they are little girls, females learn about nurturing. First with dolls and later perhaps with younger brothers and sisters, girls are given the role of carer. Girls see their mothers in the same roles and so it is natural that they identify this as a female activity. Boys, in contrast, learn competitive roles far removed from what it means to nurture. While boys may dream of adventures, girls' conditioning means they tend to see the future in terms of raising families.<br /><br />Girls also appear to be less aggressive than boys. In adulthood, it is men, not women, who prove to be the aggressors in crime and in war. Obviously, in raising children, a more patient, gentle manner is preferable to a more aggressive one. Although there certainly exist gentle men and aggressive women, by and large, females are less likely to resort to violence in attempting to solve problems.<br /><br />Finally, women tend to be better communicators than men. This is shown is intelligence tests, where females, on average, do better in verbal communication than males. Of course, communication is of utmost importance in rearing children, as children tend to learn from and adopt the communication styles of their parents.<br /><br />Thus, while it is all very well to suggest a greater role for men in raising children, let us not forget that women are generally better suited to the parenting role.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0