Writing Task 2 Examples From Website

Example 1.1- Agree & Disagree

Question: As well as making money, businesses also have social

responsibilities. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Answer:

Businesses have always sought to make a profit, but it is becoming

increasingly common to hear people talk about the social obligations that
companies have. I completely agree with the idea that businesses
should do more for society than simply make money.

On the one hand, I accept that businesses must make money in order to
survive in a competitive world. It seems logical that the priority of any
company should be to cover its running costs, such as employees’
wages and payments for buildings and utilities. On top of these costs,
companies also need to invest in improvements and innovations if they
wish to remain successful. If a company is unable to pay its bills or meet
the changing needs of customers, any concerns about social
responsibilities become irrelevant. In other words, a company can only
make a positive contribution to society if it is in good financial health.

On the other hand, companies should not be run with the sole aim of
maximising profit; they have a wider role to play in society. One social
obligation that owners and managers have is to treat their employees
well, rather than exploiting them. For example, they could pay a “living
wage” to ensure that workers have a good quality of life. I also like the
idea that businesses could use a proportion of their profits to support
local charities, environmental projects or education initiatives. Finally,
instead of trying to minimise their tax payments by using accounting
loopholes, I believe that company bosses should be happy to contribute
to society through the tax system.

In conclusion, I believe that companies should place as much

importance on their social responsibilities as they do on their financial
objectives.
Example 1.2- Agree & Disagree

Question: The money spent by governments on space programmes would be

better spent on vital public services such as schools and hospitals. To what
extent do you agree or disagree?

Answer:

Governments in some countries spend large amounts of money on space

exploration programmes. I completely agree with the idea that these are a
waste of money, and that the funds should be allocated to public services.

There are several reasons why space programmes should be abandoned.

Firstly, it is extremely expensive to train scientists and other staff involved with
space missions, and facilities and equipment also come at a huge cost to the
government. Secondly, these programmes do not benefit normal people in our
daily lives; they are simply vanity projects for politicians. Finally, many
missions to space fail completely, and the smallest technological error can
cost astronauts their lives. The Challenger space shuttle disaster showed us
that space travel is extremely dangerous, and in my opinion it is not worth the
risk.

I believe that the money from space programmes should go to vital public
services instead. It is much cheaper to train doctors, teachers, police and
other public service workers than it is to train astronauts or the scientists and
engineers who work on space exploration projects. Furthermore, public
servants do jobs that have a positive impact on every member of society. For
example, we all use schools, hospitals and roads, and we all need the security
that the police provide. If governments reallocated the money spent on space
travel and research, many thousands of people could be lifted out of poverty
or given a better quality of life.

In conclusion, my view is that governments should spend money on services

that benefit all members of society, and it is wrong to waste resources on
projects that do not improve our everyday lives.

Summarize previous ones

Example 2.1- Discuss both Views

Question: In many countries, a small number of people earn extremely high

salaries. Some people believe that this is good for the country, but others think
that governments should not allow salaries above a certain level. Discuss both
these views and give your own opinion.

Answer:

People have different views about whether governments should introduce a

maximum wage. While in some ways it may seem reasonable to allow people
to earn as much as companies are willing to pay, I personally believe that
employee remuneration should be capped at a certain level.

There are various reasons why it might be considered beneficial to allow

people to be paid extremely high salaries. If companies offer excellent pay
packages, they can attract the most talented people in their fields to work for
them. For example, technology companies like Google are able to employ the
best programmers because of the huge sums that they are willing to pay.
Furthermore, these well-paid employees are likely to be highly motivated to
work hard and therefore drive their businesses successfully. In theory, this
should result in a thriving economy and increased tax revenues, which means
that paying high salaries benefits everyone.

However, I agree with those who argue that there should be a maximum
wage. By introducing a limit on earnings, the pay-gap between bosses and
employees can be reduced. Currently, the difference between normal and top
salaries is huge, and this can demotivate workers who feel that the situation is
unfair. With lower executive salaries, it might become feasible to introduce
higher minimum wages, and everybody would be better off. One possible
consequence of greater equality could be that poverty and crime rates fall
because the general population will experience an improved standard of living.

In conclusion, it seems to me that it would be better, on balance, for

governments to set a limit on the wages of the highest earners in society.
Example 2.2- Discuss both Views

Question: Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new

medicines and to test the safety of other products. Some people argue that
these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause
animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them because of their benefits
to humanity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Answer:

It is true that medicines and other products are routinely tested on animals
before they are cleared for human use. While I tend towards the viewpoint that
animal testing is morally wrong, I would have to support a limited amount of
animal experimentation for the development of medicines.

On the one hand, there are clear ethical arguments against animal
experimentation. To use a common example of this practice, laboratory mice
may be given an illness so that the effectiveness of a new drug can be
measured. Opponents of such research argue that humans have no right to
subject animals to this kind of trauma, and that the lives of all creatures should
be respected. They believe that the benefits to humans do not justify the
suffering caused, and that scientists should use alternative methods of
research.

On the other hand, reliable alternatives to animal experimentation may not

always be available. Supporters of the use of animals in medical research
believe that a certain amount of suffering on the part of mice or rats can be
justified if human lives are saved. They argue that opponents of such research
might feel differently if a member of their own families needed a medical
treatment that had been developed through the use of animal
experimentation. Personally, I agree with the banning of animal testing for
non-medical products, but I feel that it may be a necessary evil where new
drugs and medical procedures are concerned.

In conclusion, it seems to me that it would be wrong to ban testing on animals

for vital medical research until equally effective alternatives have been
developed.
Example 3- Advantages and Disadvantages

Question: In some countries, many more people are choosing to live alone
nowadays than in the past. Do you think this is a positive or negative
development?

Answer:

In recent years it has become far more normal for people to live alone,
particularly in large cities in the developed world. In my opinion, this trend
could have both positive and negative consequences in equal measure.

The rise in one-person households can be seen as positive for both

personal and broader economic reasons. On an individual level, people
who choose to live alone may become more independent and self-reliant
than those who live with family members. A young adult who lives alone,
for example, will need to learn to cook, clean, pay bills and manage his or
her budget, all of which are valuable life skills; an increase in the number of
such individuals can certainly be seen as a positive development. From an
economic perspective, the trend towards living alone will result in greater
demand for housing. This is likely to benefit the construction industry,
estate agents and a whole host of other companies that rely on
homeowners to buy their products or services.

However, the personal and economic arguments given above can be

considered from the opposite angle. Firstly, rather than the positive feeling
of increased independence, people who live alone may experience feelings
of loneliness, isolation and worry. They miss out on the emotional support
and daily conversation that family or flatmates can provide, and they must
bear the weight of all household bills and responsibilities; in this sense,
perhaps the trend towards living alone is a negative one.
Secondly, from the financial point of view, a rise in demand for housing is
likely to push up property prices and rents. While this may benefit some
businesses, the general population, including those who live alone, will be
faced with rising living costs.

In conclusion, the increase in one-person households will have both

beneficial and detrimental effects on individuals and on the economy.
Example 4- Problems and Causes

Question: More and more people are migrating to cities in search of a

better life, but city life can be extremely difficult. Explain some of the
difficulties of living in a city. How can governments make urban life better
for everyone?

Answer:

Cities are often seen as places of opportunity, but there are also some
major drawbacks of living in a large metropolis. In my opinion, governments
could do much more to improve city life for the average inhabitant.

The main problem for anyone who hopes to migrate to a large city is that
the cost of living is likely to be much higher than it is in a small town or
village. Inhabitants of cities have to pay higher prices for housing, transport,
and even food. Another issue is that urban areas tend to suffer from social
problems such as high crime and poverty rates in comparison with rural
areas. Furthermore, the air quality in cities is often poor, due to pollution
from traffic, and the streets and public transport systems are usually
overcrowded. As a result, city life can be unhealthy and stressful.

However, there are various steps that governments could take to tackle
these problems. Firstly, they could invest money in the building of
affordable or social housing to reduce the cost of living. Secondly,
politicians have the power to ban vehicles from city centres and promote
the use of cleaner public transport, which would help to reduce both air
pollution and traffic congestion. In London, for example, the introduction of
a congestion charge for drivers has helped to curb the traffic problem. A
third option would be to develop provincial towns and rural areas, by
moving industry and jobs to those regions, in order to reduce the pressure
on major cities.

In conclusion, governments could certainly implement a range of measures

to enhance the quality of life for all city residents.
Example 5- Two Part Question

Question: Happiness is considered very important in life. Why is it difficult

to define? What factors are important in achieving happiness?

Answer:

It is no doubt true that the majority of people would like to be happy in their
lives. While the personal nature of happiness makes it difficult to describe,
there do seem to be some common needs that we all share with regard to
experiencing or achieving happiness.

Happiness is difficult to define because it means something different to

each individual person. Nobody can fully understand or experience another
person’s feelings, and we all have our own particular passions from which
we take pleasure. Some people, for example, derive a sense of satisfaction
from earning money or achieving success, whereas for others, health and
family are much more important. At the same time, a range of other
feelings, from excitement to peacefulness, may be associated with the idea
of happiness, and the same person may therefore feel happy in a variety of
different ways.

Although it seems almost impossible to give a precise definition of

happiness, most people would agree that there are some basic
preconditions to achieving it. Firstly, it is hard for a person to be happy if he
or she does not have a safe place to live and enough food to eat. Our basic
survival needs must surely be met before we can lead a pleasant life.
Secondly, the greatest joy in life is usually found in shared experiences with
family and friends, and it is rare to find a person who is content to live in
complete isolation. Other key factors could be individual freedom and a
sense of purpose in life.

In conclusion, happiness is difficult to define because it is particular to each

individual, but I believe that our basic needs for shelter, food and company
need to be fulfilled before we can experience it.