WRITING TASK 2

EX 1:
Many people argue that older school children should study various subjects in order to gain
comprehensive knowledge while the alternative stance asserts that focusing on a limited number
of subjects is more beneficial to students. The purpose of this essay is to analyze both
perspectives and explain why I am in favor of the latter view.
On the one hand, studying a wide range of subjects helps students develop well-rounded
knowledge. By learning different fields such as science, literature, and arts, students can gain a
deeper understanding of the world and become more adaptable. This broad education also gives
them a competitive advantage in the job market, especially in an era where many traditional jobs
are being replaced by technology. As a result, individuals with diverse knowledge and skills are
more likely to cope with unpredictable changes and survive in the workplace.
In addition, exposure to various subjects allows students to discover their true interests and
strengths. For example, in secondary and high schools, students can try different subjects before
deciding what they are genuinely passionate about. This helps them make more informed career
choices and better orient their future paths.
On the other hand, focusing on a limited number of subjects enables students to gain in-depth
knowledge and expertise. Instead of spreading their attention too thin, they can devote more time
to mastering essential subjects related to their future careers. For instance, a student who wants
to become a doctor should concentrate on biology and chemistry rather than spending equal time
on unrelated subjects like music or geography. However, this approach may also reduce
flexibility and increase academic pressure.
In conclusion, while both approaches have advantages, I believe that students should first be
exposed to a broad range of subjects and later specialize based on their interests and career goals.
EX 2:
These days, the structural patterns of families and the responsibilities of their members have
undergone significant alterations. There are some major shifts in modern family dynamics, and I
firmly believe that they are beneficial to society.
On the one hand, two main changes can be observed in most contemporary families compared to
the past. The first noticeable shift is that family size has become smaller. In the past, extended
families with three generations or more living under the same roof used to be prevalent.
However, in today’s society, nuclear families consisting of only two generations are becoming a
new trend in most countries. The second major change is that the roles of parents have shifted
dramatically. Previously, husbands were the sole breadwinners in almost all families, while wives
acted as homemakers who were exclusively in charge of household chores and bringing up or
raising their children. Today, most women take part in the workforce, and an increasing number
of working mothers partly contribute to the monthly income of their families. Consequently, men
and women now tend to share the responsibilities of housework and child-care equally.
On the other hand, I am convinced that the advantages of these changes are far more significant
than their disadvantages. First and foremost, people can avoid unnecessary family conflicts when
living in nuclear families. Young people and their elderly relatives do not have to face family
disputes stemming from generation gaps when they do not live under the same roof, which
allows them to feel less stressed and enjoy more privacy. Furthermore, these shifts promote
gender equality and make the financial condition of families become more stable. Both females
and males now have the right to pursue their own career paths. The fact that women take part in
the labor force beautifully reflects the equality between the two genders. At the same time, when
women go to work, they can greatly ease the financial burden placed on their husbands'
shoulders, leading to a higher standard of living.
In conclusion, the structure of the family and the roles of its members are gradually changing,
and I personally think that these are definitely positive alterations.
EX 3:
In contemporary society, whether individuals should have the right to freely construct their
houses and blocks according to their own preferences remains a subject of intense debate. While
this freedom offers certain personal benefits, I firmly believe that the drawbacks of unregulated
construction far outweigh the advantages.
On the one hand, allowing citizens the freedom of building houses can bring about several
merits. First and foremost, it offers locals chances to be more creative. When people are at liberty
to design their own shelters, they can come up with innovative ideas to construct their homes in
novelty and original ways. This unique personalization not only satisfies the house owners but
also brings a profound sense of happiness to them, since they are able to live in their ideal
houses. Secondly, this policy enables individuals to select a house with materials, shapes, and
sizes that are suitable for their budget. For instance, people with lower salaries are not forced to
erect a house identical to those with lucrative incomes, which would otherwise cause them to
bear a heavy financial burden. Instead, they should be at liberty to design and construct their
homes based on their specific financial conditions.
On the other hand, I am convinced that the lack of architectural regulations can lead to severe
consequences for the wider community. One major downside is that without any restrictions,
many people are likely to enlarge their houses as much as possible. Some house owners
frequently try to occupy as much room as they can so that their families would have more space
for the sake of their living convenience. This selfish practice inevitably results in limited space
left for public infrastructure and negatively affects the surrounding landscapes. Furthermore,
unregulated construction can exert negative impacts on the scenes of a town or a city. When
buildings with antique designs and state-of-the-art skyscrapers are situated adjacent to one
another, the overall city scene will look incredibly chaotic. For example, in Hanoi, many cutting-
edge buildings are located right next to shabby and run-down apartment blocks, making the city
look far less appealing to visitors.
In conclusion, although the freedom to build houses based on personal preferences allows for
financial flexibility and architectural creativity, it poses significant threats to urban planning and
aesthetic harmony. Therefore, I support the view that the disadvantages of this trend are much
more significant than its benefits.