In some countries, it is illegal for companies to reject job applicants

for their age. Is this a positive or negative development?

In certain countries, employers are legally prohibited from discriminating
against job applicants on the basis of age. In my view, although the policy
aims to foster fairness and equal opportunity, the potential drawbacks in
real-world application may outweigh its intended benefits.

It is true that banning age-based discrimination can promote fairness and

equal opportunity in the labour market. One key advantage is that it
encourages a diverse and inclusive workforce. Applicants of different ages
—whether younger or older—can offer unique skills, experiences, and
perspectives that enhance workplace collaboration. As a result, fair hiring
practices help build stronger team dynamics and foster innovation.
Another benefit is that this policy helps reduce social inequality,
particularly for older individuals. Many experienced professionals, for
instance, are unfairly rejected due to age, even when they possess valuable
expertise. By protecting them from discrimination, anti-age laws allow for
extended careers and improved financial security later in life.

However, enforcing such regulations may come with practical limitations

which undermine their intended benefits.. One notable issue is that
employers might still find indirect ways to discriminate. Bias can persist
during interviews, or companies may use coded language in job
advertisements to subtly exclude certain age groups. Consequently, legal
protection alone may not be sufficient to eliminate age-related prejudice in
hiring practices. Another concern is that certain jobs have physical
requirements that may not align with all applicants' capabilities. For
example, roles involving manual labour or high physical endurance may
be less suitable for older candidates. In such cases, mandatory inclusion
could result in mismatches between workers and job demands, potentially
affecting performance and safety.
In conclusion, while making age-based discrimination illegal in hiring is a
positive step toward fairness and equality, its effectiveness is limited by
enforcement challenges and the persistence of
implicit bias.
(301 words)

Some people say that too much attention and too many resources are
given to protect wild animals and birds. To what extent do you agree
or disagree?
It is often argued that protecting wild animals and birds receives
disproportionate attention and resources compared to pressing human
needs. While I understand that investing in wildlife conservation is
necessary and beneficial, it is also important to ensure that this effort does
not overshadow other urgent human needs.
Protecting wild animals and birds is a necessary investment for both nature
and humanity. One reason is that preserving biodiversity is essential for
maintaining ecological balance and environmental health. Each species, no
matter how small, contributes to the stability of ecosystems by playing a
specific role in natural processes. As a result, protecting wildlife helps to
sustain clean air, fresh water, fertile soil, and interconnected food chains
that humans also rely on. Another important point is that conservation
reflects both a moral responsibility and a long-term benefit to future
generations. By actively preserving endangered species, we ensure that the
natural world remains intact and accessible for those who come after us.
Therefore, environmental care is not just a matter of ethics, but also a step
toward a more sustainable future.
However, other urgent needs deserve more focus and funding. The first
notable concern is that social sectors such as education, healthcare, and
poverty alleviation are often underfunded. These areas directly affect
human well-being and development, yet they may receive less attention
when resources are heavily directed toward wildlife protection. Excessive
focus on animal conservation therefore can limit the support available for
essential public services. Another issue is the potential inefficiency of
some conservation projects. In certain cases, large sums of money are
spent on protecting rare species that have minimal ecological impact.
When this occurs, the funds may be viewed as symbolic rather than
practical, producing little real-world benefit and leading to a misuse of
limited resources.
In conclusion, although I believe that protecting wild animals and birds is
a valuable and morally sound goal, it is also important to strike a balance
by allocating resources judiciously across social and environmental
priorities. By doing so, we can ensure that conservation efforts
complement—rather than compete with—human development goals.
(350 words)

Some people say that what people do to protect the environment cannot
make a difference. Others say that individuals can help to protect the
environment. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
It is often debated whether individual actions can meaningfully protect the
environment or whether only large-scale efforts by governments and
corporations can make a real difference. While I acknowledge that
systemic change is indispensable, I contend that individual responsibility
and grassroots engagement are vital catalysts for broader environmental
progress.
Some argue that environmental problems are too vast for individual efforts
to have any significant impact. From this perspective, the most significant
causes of environmental degradation are believed to come from industries
and government policies. Pollution, deforestation, and greenhouse gas
emissions are often driven by factories, large-scale agriculture, and weak
regulatory enforcement. As a result, small-scale actions such as using
reusable bags or turning off lights may feel insignificant when compared
to the scope of industrial damage. Another concern is the lack of
coordination among individuals. When only a few people recycle or save
water while the majority continue wasteful habits, the cumulative effect
appears minimal. Consequently, isolated efforts often produce little visible
change to climate or biodiversity, leading many to doubt the effectiveness
of personal responsibility in combating global challenges.
Nonetheless, I firmly believe that individual responsibility plays a vital
role in protecting the planet. One important reason is that widespread
change often begins with shifts in individual behaviour. When people
make daily choices to reduce waste, use eco-friendly products, or conserve
energy, they contribute to a growing culture of sustainability. Over time,
these small habits influence consumer demand and encourage industries to
adopt greener practices. Another key point is that individuals can
participate in civic and community engagement. By voting for
environmentally focused leaders, joining local campaigns, or supporting
grassroots initiatives, for example, citizens can help shape environmental
policy. As a result, public involvement builds collective pressure on
governments and corporations, pushing them toward more sustainable
decisions.
In conclusion, although the scale of industrial pollution and the need for
coordinated action by governments and corporations are undeniable, I
maintain that individual behaviors and community initiatives are essential
foundations for meaningful environmental progress.
(337 words)

Some people believe that car-free days are effective ways to reduce air
pollution. However, others argue that there are other ways that are
more effective. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Opinions are divided as to whether car-free days effectively tackle air

pollution or are merely symbolic gestures requiring more comprehensive
action. While car-free days raise public awareness and offer temporary
environmental benefits, I believe long-term strategies are more effective in
reducing pollution on a larger scale.
Admittedly, car-free days can deliver an immediate reduction in
harmful emissions and raise public consciousness about sustainable
mobility. First, when private vehicles are temporarily taken off the road,
levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide decline noticeably. For
instance, Bogotá and Paris routinely report clearer skies and improved air
quality indices on their respective car-free event days. Moreover, these
initiatives allow citizens to experience streets dedicated to walking,
cycling, and public transit. Such trial runs can foster positive attitudes
toward greener travel. This means that participants who enjoy unpolluted,
pedestrian-friendly boulevards may be more inclined to adopt bicycles or
buses in their daily routines. Consequently, car-free days can act as
catalysts for modest shifts in commuter behaviour.
However, this initiative is ineffective for several reasons, one of which is
that the gains produced by one-off bans tend to dissipate almost as soon as
restrictions are lifted. This is because traffic volumes can rebound the
following day, erasing any emissions savings and leaving long-term
pollution levels little changed.
Structural solutions, however, provide sustained air-quality improvements
that one-day bans simply cannot achieve. To be specific, substantial
investment in electric buses, urban rail networks, and extensive bike lanes
provides convenient alternatives to car travel while stringent regulations
on vehicle emissions can compel manufacturers and motorists alike to
reduce their environmental footprint. Norway’s ambitious electric-vehicle
incentives and the Netherlands’ world-class cycling infrastructure, for
example, have both contributed to sustained decreases in urban smog.
In conclusion, while car-free days can raise awareness and provide short-
term relief from air pollution, I believe they are not a sustainable solution
on their own. Long-term investment in green technology, improved public
transport, and policy reform will have a much more lasting and meaningful
impact on reducing air pollution.
(351 words)