[Link] people say that economic development is necessary to reduce poverty in the world.

Others say economic growth should be stopped immediately to stop damaging the
environment. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

Introduction
People have different opinions about whether economic development is essential to reduce
global poverty or whether economic growth should be stopped immediately to prevent
environmental damage. While rapid economic expansion often causes pollution and
environmental degradation, I believe that economic development is still necessary, provided it is
managed in a sustainable way.

Main Body Paragraph 1 (Opposing view – stop economic growth)

On the one hand, some people argue that economic growth should be halted to protect the
environment.

Why do they believe economic growth should be stopped?

They think that industrial expansion increases pollution, deforestation, and the overuse of
natural resources, which seriously harm ecosystems. This also accelerates climate change and
threatens wildlife and human health.

What will happen if economic growth continues without control?

If economic growth is not limited, environmental damage will become irreversible and future
generations may suffer from natural disasters and resource shortages.

For example, excessive industrial activity has already led to air pollution and global warming in
many developing countries. This explains why some people believe stopping economic growth is
necessary to save the planet.

Main Body Paragraph 2 (My opinion – economic development is necessary)

On the other hand, I believe that economic development is essential to reduce poverty around
the world.

Why is economic development necessary to reduce poverty?

Economic growth creates jobs, increases income levels, and allows governments to invest in
healthcare, education, and infrastructure. It also improves living standards and provides basic
necessities such as clean water and electricity.
What will happen if countries continue economic development responsibly?
If economic development is combined with environmental protection, poverty will decline while
natural resources are preserved for the future.

For instance, many countries are now investing in renewable energy and green technology,
which supports economic growth without causing serious environmental harm. Therefore,
sustainable development is a more practical solution than stopping growth entirely.

Conclusion
In summary, while some people believe that economic growth should be stopped to prevent
environmental damage, I believe that economic development is necessary to reduce poverty, as
long as it is carried out in an environmentally responsible manner.

2. Some people argue that companies and private individual rather than government should
pay the bills of pollution. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Introduction
It is argued that instead of governments, private companies and individual citizens should be
held financially responsible for the pollution they create. I completely agree with this idea
because industries are the main contributors to air pollution, and individuals also play a role in
deforestation through unsustainable practices.

Main Body Paragraph 1 – (Air Pollution caused by industries)

One major reason why companies should pay for pollution is that industrial activities are the
largest source of air contamination.

How does holding polluters accountable help reduce pollution?

Factories release harmful gases from burning fossil fuels, which not only accelerate global
warming but also cause severe health issues. If corporations were forced to bear the cost of the
damage they cause, they would be more likely to adopt renewable energy and cleaner
technologies. For example, many multinational companies in Europe have started investing in
solar and wind power after being fined for exceeding emission limits. This proves that when
businesses are financially accountable, they take serious steps to reduce their carbon footprint.

Main Body Paragraph 2 – (Deforestation linked to individuals and companies)

Another reason why both individuals and private organizations should cover environmental
costs is the widespread problem of deforestation. Large corporations often clear forests for
urbanization or agriculture, while individuals contribute by overusing wood and land resources.
If people and companies were charged for every tree cut or every piece of land misused, they
would think twice before destroying natural habitats. For instance, eco-tourism programs in
countries like Costa Rica require participants to pay conservation fees, which directly fund
reforestation and wildlife protection. This demonstrates that financial responsibility can
discourage harmful practices and promote sustainable development.

Conclusion
In summary, while governments play an important role in environmental regulation, I believe
that companies and individuals should directly bear the cost of pollution. By making them
financially accountable, society can reduce industrial emissions and deforestation, creating a
cleaner and more sustainable future.

3. Some people think that development in technology causes environmental problems. Other
people believe that technology can solve environmental problems. Discuss both sides of the
argument and then give your opinion

Introduction
People have different opinions about whether technological development causes environmental
damage or helps to solve environmental problems. While it is true that some forms of
technology contribute to pollution and resource depletion, I believe that modern technology
plays a more important role in protecting the environment and promoting sustainability.

Main Body Paragraph 1 (Opposing view – technology causes environmental problems)

On the one hand, some people argue that technological development is a major cause of
environmental problems.

Question: Why does technology create environmental damage?

They believe that industrial machines, factories, and vehicles rely heavily on fossil fuels, which
increases air and water pollution. This also leads to excessive use of natural resources, such as
coal, oil, and minerals, causing long-term environmental degradation.

Question: What will happen if this continues?

If harmful technologies continue to be used without regulation, environmental problems such
as global warming and health-related diseases will become more severe.

For example, emissions from factories and cars have significantly contributed to climate change
and poor air quality in many industrial cities. This explains why some people see technology as a
threat to the environment.
Main Body Paragraph 2 (My view – technology can solve environmental problems)
On the other hand, I believe that technology is a powerful tool for solving environmental
problems.

Question: Why can technology protect the environment?

Modern innovations such as renewable energy, electric vehicles, and recycling systems reduce
pollution and help conserve natural resources. In addition, technology increases environmental
awareness by spreading information through media and digital platforms.

Question: What will happen if green technology is widely adopted?

If governments and industries invest in clean and sustainable technology, pollution levels will
decrease and environmental conditions will gradually improve.

For instance, the use of solar and wind energy has helped many countries reduce carbon
emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. Therefore, technology is more of a solution than a
cause of environmental problems.

Conclusion
In summary, while some people believe that technological development damages the
environment, I believe that technology can effectively solve environmental problems. With
proper control and sustainable innovation, technology can help protect the planet and ensure a
cleaner future.

*4. Most countries do not recycle their waste like paper, glass, and aluminum cans. Why does
this happen and what steps can be taken to encourage recycling?

Introduction
Many nations still fail to recycle waste products such as paper, glass, and aluminum cans despite
the clear environmental advantages. This problem arises mainly due to poor infrastructure and
lack of awareness, but it can be resolved if governments and individuals take coordinated
action.

Main Body Paragraph 1

One of the primary reasons for limited recycling is the absence of proper facilities and
education. Many countries do not invest in recycling plants, and people often lack knowledge
about how to separate household waste. If citizens were taught the long-term consequences of
unchecked waste, they would be more motivated to act responsibly. For instance, in several
developing countries, garbage is dumped in open landfills, which leads to soil and water
pollution. Therefore, the lack of infrastructure and awareness directly discourages recycling.
👉 (idea: lack of infrastructure and public awareness)

Main Body Paragraph 2

To encourage recycling, governments and communities must implement systematic measures.
Authorities can provide accessible recycling bins, launch awareness campaigns, and offer
financial incentives to people who recycle regularly. If stricter laws were enforced against
littering and waste mismanagement, citizens would be compelled to adopt eco-friendly habits.
For example, in Germany, a deposit-return scheme for bottles has made recycling a routine part
of daily life. Thus, strong policies and community participation can significantly increase
recycling rates worldwide.
👉 (idea: government policies and community initiatives to encourage recycling)

Conclusion
In summary, recycling does not take place in most countries because of inadequate
infrastructure and low public awareness. However, by introducing effective laws, campaigns,
and incentives, nations can ensure that recycling becomes a common and sustainable practice,
helping to protect the environment for future generations.

5. some people think that instead of preventing climate change, we need to find a way to live
with it. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Introduction

It is argued that rather than trying to prevent climate change, we should focus on finding ways
to live with it. I completely disagree with this idea because preventing climate change is far
more effective in protecting the environment, human health, and long-term economic stability.

One important reason we should focus on preventing climate change is that it can reduce the
frequency and severity of natural disasters.

How can prevention reduce natural disasters?

By lowering greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to renewable energy, global warming
can be slowed, reducing extreme weather events such as storms, floods, and heatwaves. If
countries implement strict climate policies, fewer communities will experience devastating
disasters. For example, Germany has invested heavily in renewable energy and emission
reduction programs, which helps decrease the country’s carbon footprint and long-term
environmental risks. This shows that prevention can protect lives and property more effectively
than simply adapting.

Another reason is that preventing climate change is more cost-effective than only adapting to its
effects.

How does prevention save money and support society?

Investing in clean energy, reforestation, and sustainable transport reduces future damage to
infrastructure, agriculture, and public health. If governments prioritize prevention, they can
avoid massive costs caused by floods, droughts, and other climate-related disasters. For
instance, countries that adopt proactive policies, like Sweden, spend less on disaster relief and
recovery than those relying only on adaptation. This demonstrates that prevention benefits
both the economy and public safety.

6. The preventing and reducing global environmental damage lies with politicians, as there
are very little the individuals can do about this problem. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?

Introduction

It is argued that preventing and reducing global environmental damage is mainly the
responsibility of politicians, rather than individuals. I partially agree with this idea because
governments have the power to enforce large-scale environmental policies, but individuals can
also make meaningful contributions through their daily choices.

One important reason politicians play a major role in tackling environmental problems is that
they can implement regulations and policies that affect entire countries.

How can politicians prevent environmental damage?

They can introduce laws to limit emissions, control industrial pollution, and promote renewable
energy. If governments enforce strict environmental policies, large-scale pollution can be
significantly reduced. For example, Sweden has implemented government-led initiatives for
renewable energy, resulting in one of the lowest per capita carbon emissions in Europe. This
shows that political action is essential for addressing global environmental issues effectively.

However, individuals also have an important role to play in protecting the environment.
How can individuals contribute to environmental protection?
Small actions, such as recycling, reducing energy consumption, and using public transport,
collectively reduce environmental damage. If millions of people adopt eco-friendly habits, the
overall impact on pollution and resource depletion can be substantial. For instance, in Japan,
citizens’ careful recycling and energy-saving practices have complemented government policies
to reduce waste and carbon emissions. This demonstrates that individuals can make a real
difference when combined with political measures.

Conclusion

In summary, while governments and politicians are primarily responsible for creating large-scale
environmental solutions, I believe that individuals also have a significant role in reducing
environmental damage. Both political action and personal responsibility are essential for
protecting the planet and ensuring a sustainable future.

7. Nuclear Energy is a better choice for meeting increasing demand. Do you agree or
disagree?

Introduction

It is argued that nuclear energy is a better option for meeting the growing demand for
electricity. I completely agree with this idea because nuclear power can produce large amounts
of energy efficiently and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

One important reason nuclear energy is a good choice is that it can generate large amounts of
electricity with relatively low fuel consumption.

How does nuclear energy meet increasing demand?

A single nuclear power plant can supply electricity to millions of households, which makes it
more efficient than many renewable sources. If governments invest in building more nuclear
power plants, countries can meet the rising energy needs of industries and citizens without
frequent power shortages. For example, France relies on nuclear energy for around 70% of its
electricity production, ensuring a stable supply even when demand rises. This shows that
nuclear power can reliably meet the energy needs of a growing population.
Another reason is that nuclear energy helps reduce carbon emissions compared to fossil fuels.

How does nuclear energy reduce pollution?

Nuclear plants produce electricity without burning coal or gas, which means they emit very little
greenhouse gases. If more countries adopt nuclear energy, global carbon emissions can be
significantly reduced. For instance, South Korea has invested heavily in nuclear energy, which
allows the country to meet its industrial energy demand while keeping pollution levels relatively
low. This demonstrates that nuclear energy can be both efficient and environmentally
beneficial.

Conclusion

In summary, while renewable sources are important, I believe that nuclear energy is a better
choice for meeting increasing electricity demand. It provides a reliable and large-scale energy
supply and helps reduce dependence on fossil fuels, making it an efficient and cleaner option
for the future.

8. The international community must act immediately to ensure all nations to reduce their
consumption of fossil fuels e.g. gas and oil. To what extent do you agree/ disagree? Use
specific reasons and examples to explain your choice.

Introduction
Introduction

It is argued that the international community must take immediate action to ensure all nations
reduce their consumption of fossil fuels such as gas and oil. I completely agree with this idea
because urgent global cooperation is necessary to prevent climate change and protect the
environment for future generations.

One important reason why countries must reduce fossil fuel consumption is that burning these
fuels significantly contributes to global warming.

How does reducing fossil fuel use help the environment?

Fossil fuels release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which trap
heat and raise global temperatures. If nations switch to renewable energy sources like solar
and wind power, carbon emissions can be substantially reduced. For example, Denmark has
invested heavily in wind energy, which now generates a large portion of the country’s electricity.
This shows that reducing reliance on fossil fuels can help slow down climate change and lower
environmental damage.
Another reason is that decreasing fossil fuel consumption can improve public health and
economic sustainability.

How does this happen?

Burning gas and oil produces air pollution, which increases respiratory diseases and healthcare
costs. If countries reduce fossil fuel use, air quality will improve, leading to healthier
populations and lower medical expenses. For instance, after Germany increased its use of
renewable energy, levels of air pollutants in cities dropped significantly. This demonstrates that
transitioning to cleaner energy benefits both the environment and human well-being.

Conclusion

In summary, while transitioning to renewable energy requires global cooperation and

investment, I believe that the international community must urgently act to reduce fossil fuel
consumption. Doing so will mitigate climate change, protect public health, and create a
sustainable future for all nations.

9. Nowadays, people always throw the old things away when they buy new things; whereas
in the past, old things were repaired and used again. What factors cause this phenomenon?
What effects the phenomenon leads to?

Introduction
In today’s consumer-driven world, people frequently discard old possessions as soon as they
purchase new ones, unlike the past when repairing and reusing were common practices. This
change is largely influenced by economic and cultural factors, and it has several negative
impacts on both the environment and society.

Main Body Paragraph 1

One of the major causes of this trend is the rise of mass production and consumerism. Modern
technology has made goods cheaper and more easily available, so people often find it more
convenient to buy a new item rather than repair the old one. If repair services were more
affordable and accessible, individuals might be less inclined to throw things away. For example,
electronic gadgets such as mobile phones are frequently replaced even if they are still
functional, as companies release upgraded models every year. Thus, economic affordability and
cultural attitudes towards modern lifestyles have encouraged this throwaway culture.
👉 (idea: consumerism + cheap production make people replace instead of repair)
Main Body Paragraph 2
This phenomenon leads to serious environmental and social consequences. When people
constantly buy new products and discard the old ones, it results in overconsumption of
resources and excessive waste. If this continues unchecked, it could accelerate problems such as
air pollution from factories and deforestation caused by raw material demand. For instance, fast
fashion contributes to massive textile waste and water pollution worldwide. Therefore, the
throwaway culture not only harms the planet through climate change and biodiversity loss but
also creates an unsustainable cycle for future generations.
👉 (idea: overconsumption → pollution, deforestation, biodiversity loss, climate change)

Conclusion
In conclusion, the shift from repairing to discarding is mainly driven by cheap production and
consumer culture. However, this trend has damaging effects on the environment, including
resource depletion, pollution, and climate change. Unless societies promote recycling,
sustainability, and awareness, the throwaway culture will continue to threaten both nature and
humanity.

10. Some people feel that manufacturers and supermarkets have the responsibility to reduce
the amount of packaging of good. Other argue that customers should avoid buying good with
a lot of packaging. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Introduction

People have different opinions about whether manufacturers and supermarkets should reduce
the amount of packaging used for goods or whether customers should avoid buying products
with excessive packaging. While consumers can influence the market through their purchasing
choices, I believe that manufacturers and supermarkets have a greater responsibility because
they control production and packaging decisions.

Main Body Paragraph 1 (Opposing view – customers’ responsibility)

On the one hand, some people argue that customers should take responsibility for reducing
packaging waste.

Why do they think customers are responsible?

They believe that consumers have the power to influence companies by choosing
environmentally friendly products and refusing goods with unnecessary packaging. This creates
pressure on businesses to change their practices.
What will happen if customers change their behaviour?
If customers consistently avoid over-packaged products, companies will be forced to reduce
packaging in order to remain competitive.

For example, in countries like Germany, consumers strongly prefer recyclable and minimally
packaged goods, which has encouraged companies to adopt eco-friendly packaging. However,
this approach relies heavily on public awareness and may not be effective everywhere.

Main Body Paragraph 2 (My view – manufacturers and supermarkets’ responsibility)

On the other hand, I believe that manufacturers and supermarkets should take primary
responsibility for reducing excessive packaging.

Why should manufacturers and supermarkets be responsible?

They design products and decide how much packaging is used, meaning they have direct control
over waste generation. Moreover, individual consumers often have limited choices, especially
when most products are already heavily packaged.

What will happen if companies reduce packaging?

If manufacturers adopt sustainable packaging practices, waste levels will decrease significantly
and environmental damage will be reduced on a large scale.

For instance, supermarkets in the United Kingdom have started removing plastic packaging
from fruits and vegetables, leading to a noticeable reduction in plastic waste. Therefore,
company-led action is more effective than relying solely on individual consumers.

Conclusion

In summary, while some people believe that customers should avoid buying products with
excessive packaging, I believe that manufacturers and supermarkets have a greater
responsibility to reduce packaging waste. Since they control production decisions, their actions
can bring about faster and more meaningful environmental change.

11. In cities and towns all over the world, the high volume of traffic is a problem. What are
the causes of this and what actions can be taken to solve this problem?

Introduction
In almost every city across the globe, heavy traffic has become one of the most pressing urban
problems. This issue mainly stems from the overuse of private vehicles and rapid urbanization,
but it can be tackled effectively through modern technology and strong government initiatives.

Main Body Paragraph 1

One of the main causes of increasing traffic is the overdependence on fossil-fueled private cars.
As cities expand, people prefer driving their own vehicles instead of using public transport,
which results in air pollution and gridlock on the roads. If more citizens continue to rely on
private cars without restrictions, traffic congestion will only worsen in the future. For example,
in cities like Delhi and Jakarta, car overuse has not only created endless traffic jams but also
severe air pollution. Therefore, overconsumption of resources and urban growth are the key
reasons behind this problem.
👉 (idea: overconsumption of resources + air pollution from vehicles)

Main Body Paragraph 2

To address this issue, governments must promote eco-friendly transportation and raise public
awareness. The introduction of electric vehicles, efficient metro systems, and bicycle-sharing
schemes can reduce both congestion and carbon emissions. If authorities invested more in
renewable energy and public campaigns, citizens would gradually shift to greener options. For
instance, in Norway, the widespread use of electric cars and strong environmental awareness
programs have significantly decreased traffic-related pollution. Hence, green technology and
government action can play a vital role in solving this challenge.
👉 (idea: green technology + environmental awareness as solutions)

Conclusion
In conclusion, the traffic problem in cities is largely caused by private car dependency and
uncontrolled urbanization. However, by investing in modern green technology, renewable
transport systems, and awareness campaigns, cities can reduce congestion and create a cleaner,
healthier urban environment for future generations.

12. The key to solving the environmental problem is simple: the present generation is willing
to accept a less comfortable life for the sake of the future generation. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?

Introduction

It is argued that the solution to environmental problems lies in the willingness of the present
generation to accept a less comfortable life for the benefit of future generations. I completely
agree with this idea because personal sacrifices today can lead to long-term environmental
sustainability and a healthier planet for the future.
One important reason for this view is that reducing resource consumption can significantly
lower pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

How does accepting a less comfortable life help the environment?

By using less energy, avoiding unnecessary consumption, and relying on renewable sources,
people can reduce carbon emissions and slow down climate change. If the current generation
chooses sustainable lifestyles, future generations will inherit cleaner air, safer water, and
healthier ecosystems. For example, in Sweden, many citizens willingly use bicycles or public
transport instead of private cars, which has contributed to lower urban air pollution levels. This
shows that small sacrifices today can have a positive long-term impact on the environment.

Another reason is that adopting sustainable practices encourages social responsibility and long-
term planning.

How does this happen?

When people accept short-term discomfort, they develop habits that prioritize collective
welfare over individual convenience. If more citizens participate in recycling, energy saving,
and reduced consumption, governments can implement stricter environmental policies
effectively. For instance, former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has emphasized the
importance of personal responsibility in achieving global climate targets. This demonstrates that
voluntary sacrifices are crucial for creating a sustainable future.

Conclusion

In summary, while living comfortably is important, I believe that the present generation must be
willing to make sacrifices to protect the environment. Accepting a less comfortable lifestyle
today can lead to a cleaner, healthier, and sustainable world for future generations.

[Link] many countries, the quality of life in large cities is becoming worse/ What do you think
are the causes of this problem? What measures could be taken to solve it?

Introduction
In recent years, the living standards in many large cities have deteriorated, making urban life
increasingly difficult. This decline can be attributed to several environmental and social
challenges, but practical measures focusing on sustainability could significantly improve the
situation.
Main Body Paragraph 1 (Causes)
One major cause of poor living conditions in cities is environmental degradation. Rapid
industrialization and the excessive use of fossil fuels have led to severe air pollution, which
directly affects people’s health. If governments and industries continue to ignore renewable
alternatives, respiratory diseases and global warming will worsen. Additionally, uncontrolled
urban expansion often results in deforestation, which not only destroys natural habitats but also
accelerates climate change. For example, in megacities like Delhi or Beijing, air quality
frequently reaches hazardous levels, forcing residents to wear masks even indoors. Hence,
pollution and environmental mismanagement are among the primary reasons city life is
becoming unbearable.
👉 (idea: air pollution + deforestation from urbanization)

Main Body Paragraph 2 (Solutions)

To address these challenges, governments and individuals should adopt eco-friendly practices
and policies. Firstly, switching to renewable energy such as solar or wind power could reduce
dependence on fossil fuels and minimize pollution. If cities invested more in green technologies,
including electric vehicles and smart appliances, the carbon footprint of urban areas would
decrease significantly. Furthermore, awareness campaigns and recycling programs could
encourage citizens to reduce waste and adopt sustainable habits. For instance, Scandinavian
countries have successfully combined renewable energy and advanced recycling systems, which
has made their cities cleaner and more livable. Therefore, sustainability-focused measures can
restore the quality of life in urban centers.
👉 (idea: renewable energy + green technology + recycling + awareness)

Conclusion
In conclusion, the declining quality of urban life is largely the result of air pollution and
deforestation caused by uncontrolled industrial and urban growth. However, by promoting
renewable energy, green technology, and recycling initiatives, cities can become healthier and
more sustainable, ensuring a better quality of life for future generations.

[Link] people believe that living in big cities is becoming more difficult. Others believe that
it is getting easier. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Introduction

People have different opinions about whether living in big cities is becoming more difficult or
increasingly easier. While some people believe that environmental and lifestyle problems are
making urban life harder, I believe that modern facilities and technological development are
making life in big cities more convenient overall.
Main Body Paragraph 1 (View: Living in big cities is becoming more difficult)

On the one hand, many people argue that living in big cities is becoming more difficult due to
serious environmental and lifestyle challenges.

Question: Why do environmental problems make living in big cities more difficult?
Environmental issues such as air pollution and overcrowding reduce the quality of life by
damaging people’s health and increasing daily stress. In large cities, residents are constantly
exposed to traffic fumes, noise pollution, and limited green spaces, which makes everyday life
exhausting.

Question: How does this situation affect people’s lives in big cities?
If these environmental problems continue to worsen, city residents will suffer from long-term
health issues and mental stress.

For example, in India, cities like Delhi experience extremely high air pollution levels, causing
breathing problems and forcing schools and offices to shut down during severe smog seasons.
This clearly explains why many people feel that city life is becoming increasingly difficult.

Main Body Paragraph 2 (View: Living in big cities is becoming easier – my opinion)

On the other hand, I believe that living in big cities is becoming easier because of better
infrastructure and modern facilities.

Question: Why do modern facilities make life in big cities easier?

Big cities offer advanced public transport, healthcare, education, and digital services, which save
time and improve convenience. Access to technology and well-developed services allows people
to manage work and daily tasks more efficiently.

Question: How does this improvement change people’s daily lives?

If governments continue to invest in smart city projects and public services, urban residents will
enjoy a higher standard of living with less effort.

For instance, in Japan, cities like Tokyo have highly efficient transport systems and digital
services, enabling people to commute quickly and access healthcare and government services
with ease. This shows that despite some challenges; city life is becoming more manageable and
comfortable.

Conclusion
In summary, while some people believe that environmental problems are making life in big
cities more difficult, I believe that improved infrastructure and modern technology are making
urban living easier. Overall, the advantages of living in big cities outweigh the disadvantages in
today’s world.

15. When a new town is planned, it is more important to develop public parks and sports
facilities than shopping centers for people to spend their free time in. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?

Introduction

It is argued that when planning a new town, more emphasis should be placed on developing
public parks and sports facilities rather than shopping centers. I completely agree with this idea
because recreational spaces improve people’s health and well-being, and they encourage
community interaction.

One important reason for prioritizing parks and sports facilities is that they promote physical
and mental health.

How do parks and sports facilities improve health?

Regular access to open spaces and exercise areas encourages people to walk, run, cycle, and
play sports, which strengthens the body and reduces stress. If residents have easy access to
these facilities, they are more likely to lead an active lifestyle and avoid health problems such
as obesity or heart disease. For example, in Singapore, urban planners have built numerous
parks and jogging tracks, and studies show that residents there have higher levels of physical
activity and better overall health. This demonstrates that recreational spaces play a vital role in
maintaining the health of the community.

Another reason is that parks and sports facilities foster social interaction and a sense of
community.

How do these spaces encourage social connections?

Open areas allow people of all ages to meet, interact, and participate in group activities, which
strengthens social bonds. If towns provide well-designed recreational spaces, residents can
build friendships and reduce social isolation. For instance, in Copenhagen, Denmark, public
parks and sports complexes are central to city planning, encouraging people to engage in social
and cultural activities. This shows that such facilities are not only beneficial for health but also
for improving the quality of community life.

Conclusion

In summary, while shopping centers provide entertainment, I believe that developing parks and
sports facilities should be the priority in new towns. They promote physical health, mental well-
being, and community cohesion, making them essential for a high quality of life.

16. Some people believe that governments should spend on new public buildings, such as
libraries and museums, rather than renovating old buildings. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?

Introduction

It is argued that governments should prioritize spending on new public buildings, such as
libraries and museums, rather than renovating old ones. I partly agree with this idea because
constructing new facilities can provide modern services, but maintaining old buildings preserves
cultural heritage and historical value.

One important reason to invest in new public buildings is that they can meet modern needs
more effectively.

How can new buildings better serve the public?

New facilities can be designed with modern technologies, larger spaces, and better accessibility,
making them more suitable for current demands. If governments construct new libraries and
museums, citizens can enjoy updated services and improved learning environments. For
example, the British Library in London was built as a modern facility to accommodate millions of
books and digital archives, which could not have been achieved by renovating older structures.
This shows that new buildings can provide practical benefits and enhance public access to
knowledge and culture.

Another reason to renovate old buildings is that it preserves historical and cultural heritage.

How does renovation benefit society?

Old buildings often reflect a nation’s history, architecture, and traditions. If these buildings are
properly restored, they can attract tourism and promote cultural identity. For instance, the
restoration of the Colosseum in Rome has preserved its historical significance while allowing
millions of visitors each year. This demonstrates that renovating old buildings helps retain
cultural value while still serving the public.

Conclusion

In summary, while constructing new public buildings provides modern facilities, I believe that
renovating old structures is equally important because it preserves cultural heritage and
maintains historical identity. Therefore, a balanced approach that invests in both new and
renovated buildings is the most beneficial for society.

17. Some people believe that new buildings should be built in traditional styles. To what
extent do you agree or disagree?

Introduction

It is argued that new buildings should be constructed in traditional styles to preserve cultural
heritage. I completely agree with this idea because maintaining traditional architecture helps
protect cultural identity and can also boost tourism.

One important reason for building in traditional styles is that it preserves the cultural and
historical identity of a place.

How does constructing buildings in traditional styles protect cultural identity?

Traditional designs reflect local history, customs, and aesthetics, which can be lost if modern
styles dominate. If architects continue to incorporate traditional elements, future generations
will be able to appreciate their cultural heritage. For example, in Kyoto, Japan, new buildings in
certain districts follow traditional Japanese wooden architecture, which preserves the city’s
unique charm. This shows that respecting traditional styles can maintain a strong sense of
cultural identity.

Another reason is that traditional architecture can attract tourists and benefit the economy.

How does traditional architecture encourage tourism?

Visitors are often drawn to areas with distinctive cultural and historical designs, which offer
unique experiences compared to modern buildings. If new constructions maintain these
traditional features, local tourism and related businesses can thrive. For instance, many
tourists visit Marrakech in Morocco to see the city’s traditional Moroccan architecture,
contributing significantly to the local economy. This demonstrates that traditional-style
buildings can have both cultural and economic value.

Conclusion

In summary, while modern architecture may offer practical advantages, I believe that new
buildings should be built in traditional styles. Preserving cultural identity and attracting tourism
are two key reasons why traditional designs remain important for society.