1. Some people think that there should be some strict controls about noise. Others think that they could just make as much noise as they want. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
People have different views about whether noise should be limited. While some individuals believe the level of noise being created should be strictly controlled, I would argue that people should have the right to produce noise if they want to.
On the one hand, there are several reasons why the government should control the amount of noise produced. The first reason is that too much noise can significantly affect people's health. Living in a place that is too noisy can cause problems such as headaches, which can decrease the health levels of people, especially old ones. Additionally, noise can disturb people's work or study. For example, a university student will not be able to concentrate on his preparation for exams if his neighbours keep singing too loud.
However, I believe people should be allowed make as much noise as they want because of some reasons. Firstly, producing noise is sometimes considered a type of recreational activities. For instance, singing or cheering for a football club can be relaxing, and everyone has the right to do those things. Secondly, as the world is becoming more modern, people have found ways to deal with the problem of noise. Scientists have invented walls and windows that can block out the noise, which allows individuals to focus on their work without being disturbed. Therefore, the problem of noise can be reduced and there is no need for people to keep quiet.
In conclusion, while many people believe there should be controls about noise, I believe we have the right to create noise when we want to.
Sample 02: Band 9
People hold different views about whether people should have the freedom to produce noise or comply with some regulations of it. In my view, it is important that noise making be put under control.
On the one hand, it is understandable why some people believe in their rights to generate noise freely. As people these days often have to suffer from considerable stress at work or school, they tend to find an effective way to relieve it. In some cases, recreational activities such as karaoke singing or party holding can bring a certain amount of relaxation, mitigating stressful situations for everyone. If too strictly imposed, any restriction of noise may deter people from gaining access to one of the useful methods of relaxing.
However, I can understand the arguments against noise makers. Firstly, excessive levels of noise can cause serious disturbance to the nearby residents who also have the rights to take a proper rest after a tiring day. Those who are affected by the loud sounds from their neighbours may not only be unable to relax but also have their levels of discomfort increased. In the long term, this will definitely have a negative impact on their quality of life. Another reason for this opinion is that too much noise can produce detrimental effects on the health of the unintentional hearers. For example, constant exposure to high pitch noise can result in auditory problems, for example hearing loss. Hearing-impaired individuals are very likely to experience difficulty in their daily life.
In conclusion, although there are good reasons why people should be allowed to make as much noise as they wish, in my opinion some appropriate controls are necessary.
2. People today do not feel safe either at home or when they are out. What are the causes? What are the solutions?
People today have a sense that their safety is threatened both outside and inside their house. The reasons for this vary, and the problem should be tackled in particular ways.
There are common risks that every individual has to confront as they walk out the door. One particularly salient example for this should be traffic accidents. High population density puts pressure on the transportation system, and a rise in the number of commuting vehicles means that people now are more likely to get involved in a car crash than they were in the past.
In addition, our individual safety is not guaranteed even when we stay at home. Food poisoning is a general concern today, as manufacturers are willing to trade the well-being of their customers for profits. Toxic substances are injected into many products to maintain the food’s freshness for a longer time, and this is why state hospitals are now filled with cancer and heart-disease patients.
To tackle this problem, I would like to propose several measures. Firstly, the food market has to be better managed. The government should examine more carefully which ingredients are contained in pre-prepared meals sold to the public and ban those with high levels of preservatives. Secondly, education campaigns about the benefits of public transport should reach every resident. For example, Hanoi Urban Transport Operation Centre has recently run a programme called “Travel by Bus every Friday” on Facebook. This encourages the local people to put a limit on the use of their personal vehicles, thus the frequency of traffic accidents would also be reduced in the long-term.
In conclusion, I believe that the mentioned remedies can certainly help people lead a safer life.
3.Some people think that governments should ban dangerous sports, while others think people should have freedom to do any sports or activity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
It is stated that hazardous sports should be prohibited. However, numerous arguments have been made in aid of the idea that citizens ought to participate in any sports they are interested in. This essay will discuss the debate and give a concluding view.
On the one hand, those who advocate the ban cite that it is governments’ responsibility to forbid perilous sports for several reasons. Firstly, when those engaging in extreme sports make any mistake, they can be seriously injured or even killed. More specifically, boxing, skiing or mountaineering could give rise to hundreds of physical disabilities from grave injuries or even deaths to athletes. Secondly, spectators can also be injured in these contests. In car races, for example, if the racing car brakes or driving wheels become problematic and uncontrollable, this car may dash into spectators and hurt them. Finally, hazardous sports like boxing or car racing may provoke individuals into illegal betting, which might trigger social problems involved in stealing or fighting.
However, opponents of this view point out that social members should feel free to do any sports. The reason can be that several people can assert their passions and talents in their favorite sports with a view to realizing their aspirations to become sports professionals. Additionally, when there is no limit to any sport individuals can do, people from all walks of life and of different ages should have chances to engage in any events suited to their age groups and taste. This paves way for the increasing popularity of sports activities among the community. Therefore, numerous employment opportunities could be created for local residents in the domains related to constructing sport facilities and supplying other services ranging from selling souvenirs to offering accommodation to tourists.
In conclusion, it seems advisable that a ban on dangerous sports might be beneficial. Nevertheless, it would appear to me that there are more advantages of permitting people to be involved in any sport they show interest in.
4. Happiness is considered very important in life. Why is it difficult to define? What factors are important in achieving happiness?
Happiness is very difficult to define, because it means so many different things to different people. While some people link happiness to wealth and material success, others think it lies in emotions and loving personal relationships. Yet others think that spiritual paths, rather than either the material world or relationships with people, are the only way to true happiness.
Because people interpret happiness for themselves in so many different ways, it is difficult to give any definition that is true for everyone. However, if there are different kinds of happiness for different individuals then the first step in achieving it would be to have a degree of self-knowledge. A person needs to know who he or she is before being able to know what it is that makes him or her happy.
Of course, factors such as loving relationships, good health, the skills to earn a living and a peaceful environment all contribute to our happiness too. But this does not mean that people without these conditions cannot be happy.
Overall, I think an ability to keep clear perspectives in life is a more essential factor in achieving happiness. By that I mean an ability to have a clear sense of what is important in our lives (the welfare of our families, the quality of our relationships, making other people happy, etc.) and what is not (a problem at work, getting annoyed about trivial things, etc.)
Like self-awareness, this is also very difficult to achieve, but I think these are the two factors that may be the most important for achieving happiness.
5.Some people think that money is one of the most essential factors in promoting happiness. Do you think people can be happy without much money? What other factors contribute towards happiness?
Money is considered by many people to be one of the most important contributing factors towards happiness. In my opinion, it is possible for people to be happy even if they have little money and other aspects of life can play a more vital role in creating happiness.
Although having money brings happiness to a lot of people, it does not necessarily follow that people without money are, therefore, unhappy. Take for example the comparison between developing and developed countries, most Westerners would agree that people in developing countries are happier, enjoy stronger family connections and take more pleasure in the simplicities of life to a greater extent than those in developed countries.
One way that people can gain happiness is through their work. For instance, a doctor doing volunteer work in underdeveloped countries may have very little money but the reward of helping people and doing the job they are good at, brings happiness in itself. In other words, happiness can be found by using skills that people are trained for and through job satisfaction.
Finally, another factor influencing happiness is having supportive and loving people in one’s life. While money may bring the opportunities to enjoy pleasures, few people would enjoy them on their own. Being surrounded by a loving and caring family is considered by most people to be more valuable than any amount of money.
In conclusion, money is not essential for happiness, which can be found through job satisfaction as well as family. If more people strived in life towards true happiness rather than money, the world would be a better place.
6.Some people say taxes should be spent on health care. Other people say that there are more important priorities for tax-payers' money. Discus both these views and give your own opinion.
People hold different views about how taxes should be spent. Although I agree that medical care is a field that requires huge investments, I believe that the government should also allocate the money for other priorities, such as education and transport.
On the one hand, a certain amount of tax money has to go to healthcare services. Today, a number of particular diseases are on the rise in terms of popularity, and it would be costly to supply vaccines, medicines or treatments. For example, a large proportion of the population is now suffering from respiratory diseases or lung cancer due to exhaust fumes from vehicles and gas emissions from industrial factories. The remedies for those patients and the treatment facilities are often expensive, and the hospitals may find themselves in the struggle with financial problems without the assistance from the tax system.
On the other hand, healthcare is not the only industry that needs money to be kept running. Take education as an example. The quality of the schooling system is proportional to the 41 competence of the future workforce. Therefore, a country can benefit from such skillful human resources in the long-term if they invest the tax budget to build schools, provide lecturers with training courses or hire native speakers to teach foreign language. In addition, the government should also spend money solving transport problems. Traffic congestion is a global issue these days, and the scenario can be handled only if new highways are opened, and narrow public roads are expanded.
In conclusion, I believe that the government should use tax-payers’ money to improve not only the healthcare services, but also the education and transportation system.
7.The government and individuals are spending too much money on national celebrations like new year or festivals. Do you agree or disagree? Band 7
People have different views about whether public expenditure on national occasions such as new year or festivals is too much nowadays. While I agree that governments and individuals are spending a significant amount of money on those celebrations, I would argue that this activity is necessary and therefore can be considered acceptable.
It is true that a large amount of money is currently spent on some important celebrations of a country. Firstly, governments are spending a proportion of their budget on holding events to celebrate these occasions. For example, much money is being paid for fireworks on New Year's eve in many countries around the world. Secondly, individuals also spend money to have celebrations and parties with their families, which is a common habit in many areas. For instance, my parents and I often have a special dinner on the final day of every year.
However, I believe there are great benefits of public spending on national celebrations, and therefore it is completely justifiable. The first advantage is that this is a great way to preserve the culture of a nation. To illustrate, Lunar New Year is an important part of the Vietnamese culture, and holding celebrations for this occasion is necessary to remind younger generations of this tradition. Additionally, since these occasions are usually the only times for family members to have time and enjoy together, it is understandable that people would want to spend money on something that makes them happy. Finally, as there are only a few national celebrations in a year, the amount of money spent on those days is unlikely to be too much.
In conclusion, I disagree with the idea that people and governments are spending too much money on national occasions.
8.It is impossible to help all people in the world, so governments should only focus on people in their own countries. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Band 7
The role of one government to support citizens of other countries has been a major topic of concern in today’s society. From my perspective, this practice is feasible and there are compelling reasons why governments should help people in the global community rather than only focusing on the citizens of their own countries.
In this context of globalisation and international integration, the provision of assistance for peoples of all countries in the world is not an impossible task anymore. One explanation for this is that modern means of transport have transformed the way that international assistance could be given, and now assistance could reach even the most remote places on Earth. For example, thousands of victims of a deadly earthquake in a mountainous city in Nepal were rescued by US and German military helicopters in 2017. One further explanation is that thanks to international banking, the international community could offer a helping hand to any country where the financial system is on the verge of collapse. An excellent example of this is that the saving money of millions of taxpayers and pensioners in Greece was saved by a timely act of the European Commission of injecting a huge amount of bailout money into Greek banks in 2009.
I strongly believe any government must assume the responsibility of helping citizens in other countries. This is mainly because assisting inhabitants in other countries, to some extent, is synonymous to assisting people in the home country. In 2014, hundreds of US and UK doctors and nurses were sent to African countries to cope with the outbreak of Ebola, a dreadful plague, which had killed many thousands by that time. This action prevented the plague from further spreading to other nations, including the US and the UK themselves, considering that there was a free movement of people between countries and there were millions of African migrant workers in the US and the UK at that time. In addition, the act of supporting people all around the world may promote a sense of humanity, which is essential to the sustainable development of the world, because humanity is the foundation of peace and stability.
To conclude, governments must provide assistance for citizens of other countries for a clear reason that this feasible act could simultaneously enhance a global sense of humanity and assure their own nationals of a proper living environment.
9.In many countries, governments are spending a large amount of money on improving internet access. Why is it happening and do you think it is the most appropriate use of government money? Band 7
Recently, an ample amount of governmental investment money is being poured into the amelioration of the Internet supply. This phenomenon has its root from a host of factors, and I would discuss that there are various available ways to allocate this money more effectively.
To begin with, it is understandable why enhancing the quality of the Internet provision has become a key national investment portfolio. Firstly, with the availability of a better Internet connection, an extensive avenue of information is opened up for the inhabitants. Most residents would have omnipresent access to both international and local social news, and it has never been easier for those who live in remote areas to reach a wide range of information at a click of a button. Secondly, an improved Internet supply can facilitate the operation process of governmental companies. With stably-functioning online platforms, corporations today would no longer find it difficult to approach their customers, manage their employees or organise video conferences, which boosts the overall productivity. In the long run, the development of such firms makes great contribution to the thriving of the national economy.
However, I believe that upgrading the Internet access is not the best way to allocate the government money. The primary reason is that the broadband connection in most countries today is fast enough to satisfy the basic demands of the public. For example, in Vietnam, hardly do individuals have to wait a long time for a web page to load, while online business meetings have even become popular years ago. Therefore, an improvement in the quality of the Internet supply can be deemed not obligatory and urgent. Another justification is that there are several other fields which are being placed under strain and require the capital disbursement to function. To illustrate, a number of state hospitals in the UK have been conducting research on a complete cure for cancer, and it seems that this should be the investment priority.
In final words, all aforementioned standpoints lead me to a concrete inference that it is reasonable of the authorities to spend money bettering the Internet provision, but there are ways to allocate the capital more appropriately.
10.Providing financial aid to the poor can increase poverty. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Band 7
Poverty has become a pressing problem across the globe. Governments in many countries take various measures to control the rising poverty levels. Giving monetary help to the poor is one of the most common methods followed globally. But, the effectiveness of this approach is often questioned by social reformers and economists. According to them, this measure can make the situation worse. I completely agree with this view and in this essay I will support my opinion with examples.
Firstly, financial support does not provide the poor with a motive to become self-sustained. It seriously damages the spirit of self-development. The fundamental reason behind this is the psychological attitude which it creates in the minds of beneficiaries. If someone is getting money for their needs without doing any work, then why they would work. Even if the amount is less, they are willing to accept it. Such people resist any kind of change in their way of living. This can be exemplified with unemployment benefit receivers who hardly try to find a suitable employment for themselves.
Another reason why I am against distributing money to the poor is that it affects the overall growth and development of a country. Research has shown that nations where citizens depend on monetary help experience a slow economic growth rate. A possible explanation for this could be the skewed distribution of the available funds. The money that is meant for the development of the nation is given to those who don’t contribute to the economy in anyway. Therefore, it can be concluded that this solution creates a vicious cycle of poverty that is extremely hard to break.
To sum up, any government is responsible to fulfil the basic needs of its people. But, I strongly believe that providing financial help to the poor is not the answer. This practice should be discouraged. Other measures like skill development programmes, opening aided schools and hospitals, and creating more employment opportunities can yield far better results. In short, don’t give fish to the poor, teach them how to fish.