Topic: Some people think that environmental problems are too big for individuals
to solve. Others, however, believe that these problems cannot be solved if
individuals do not take actions. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
G: Human responsibility for environmental issues
P: government/authority >< citizens’ responsibility
Q: discuss, opinion
As technology and economy are advancing by leaps and bounds, top
priority has been given to environmental protection due to its
significance(important)
in ensuring people’s life quality. Under this circumstance, an absolute
consensus(agreement) can hardly be reached as to whether individuals are
equipped with enough ability to address(solve) environmental problems. I will
make an objective analysis of this argument in my following essay. (G-P-Q)
Some people harbor the belief that environmental issues are too big for
individuals to solve so that it should belong to the responsibility of the
government. To be specific, if the authorities can use legal and administrative
power to curb/address environmental pollution, the effect would be
significant/effective. For example, it is common practice for some factories to
discharge the sewage into the river. If the government could enact strict laws to
punish these plants/factories, this kind of irresponsible behavior would be
reduced. Also, the government can invest in developing new technology to
diminish the impact on the ecosystem, which cannot be done by individuals.
(1) Thesis statement (luan diem)
(2) Explain
(3) Give example
(4) Solution 1
(5) Solution 2
< 4 repetition
However, others maintain that individuals also have an important role to
play in improving the common home we live in. The strength of one person seems
to be minimal, but with millions of individuals taking action, the influence would
be huge. For instance, if every person can save a glass of water, the total amount
saved would be considerable in a city with millions of people. Just as an old saying
goes “many a little makes a mickle”. Another example is air pollution in cities,
which can be effectively tackled by encouraging people to use mass transit/public
transport. Supposing individuals can give up driving private cars, the air quality
would be obviously upgraded.
(1) Thesis statement
(2) Evidence
(3) Giving example 1
(4) Quotation
(5) Giving example 2
From my own perspective, I side with the stance of the latter to a larger
extent, believing that individuals can make due contribution to ecological
preservation with their own efforts. To illustrate, when people go shopping, they
can use paper or cloth bags instead of plastic ones on the grounds that the latter
can hardly be decomposed in soil so that the detriment to the environment may
be ever-lasting. Hence, as long as each and every person takes active part in the
activities of environmental protection, the ecosystem’s sustainable development
will be achieved in a long run.
Opinion -> conclusion
Which side? Example effect (conclusion)
Body 3: Opinion
Conclusion: 2 sides, opinion
Body 1.1: On the one hand, nobody can deny the fact that without an
individual’s participation, it is difficult to make a huge wave that can change
these circumstances (general). Individuals must take steps to address some
of the environmental issues that they face on a daily basis. Actually, certain
effects are created by human actions, which means people have a
responsibility to do everything they can to preserve our environments, such
as sorting trash, decreasing the use of plastic bags (how?), and conserving
water and electricity (….). These kinds of resorts are notable (why).
Furthermore, low-carbon travel by individuals, particularly commuters, using
public transportation rather than private automobiles would assist to reduce
air pollution. medium
Linker, S, particular N, V-ing, main V
Listing ideas x
Deep analysis (rec.)
Body 1.2: On the one hand, some folks believe that it should be considered
as a governmental responsibility to give solutions for this issue. Particularly,
the improvement will be prone to significantly increase if authorities can use
legal and administrative power to enact some strict laws for addressing
environmental problems. A telling example is that it should be compulsory
for all factories to pay taxes on the industrial waste which they release into
the environment. As a result, there will be a moderate decrease in the
amount of sewage because the manufacturers will pay more attention to
minimize the effect on surrounding factors to avoid to paying much money.
Also, government should focus on the development of some rules (what?)
to increase bad effect on eco-system, which can be tackled completely by
citizens. (explain?) conclusion
Levi tax
Body 2.1:
Body 2.2:
Topic: Many people like to eat unhealthy food even though they know it is
bad for them. Why? What are the most effective ways to improve people's
eating habits?
A conundrum of modern societies is the declining level of health in the
general population, such as corpulence, which can be partly ascribed to people’s
preference for unhealthy foods despite the fact that they know the detriments.
Personally, behind such preference are two predominant factors, and this thorny
issue can hopefully be tackled.
To commence, the sound flavour that junk food offers should be responsible
for the unhealthy diet. This is mainly because those unhealthy foods are usually
sugar-, salt-, or fat-laden ones high in calorie and GI, which, after being eaten, will
stimulate nerve cells to produces dopamine, a chemical functioning as a
neurotransmitter to convey bliss and excitement. For this reason, people prefer or
even easily get addicted to sugary beverages and fatty foods, especially the ones
whose mouthfeel has been enhanced. Besides, it is due to the surging living
pressure that most employees nowadays have to work non-stop. In this case, they
tend to order these instant foods, usually unhealthy ones that fit the current
fastpaced life.
Considering the gravity of this trend, three schemes can be put on the
agenda. The first approach is that policies regarding tax incentives can be issued
by governments to motivate manufacturers to develop diet and delicious
products. Meanwhile, the subsidization can, to some extent, reduce the
production costs, which will guarantee that the newlydeveloped products can be
sold at affordable prices.
Besides, high tax could be imposed on unhealthy food products. In this way,
producers will thus have to raise the price for the sake of ensuring their profits,
which naturally follows that ordinary people are more likely to consume the
aforementioned cheaper but healthy alternatives.
To recapitulate, since possible culprits and feasible remedies have been
enumerated, this crisis can be promisingly resolved with joint efforts of relevant
parties.