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.