Many people feel it is a waste of money to try to save endangered animal

species, for example, the tiger or blue whale. To what extent do you agree
or disagree with this statement? = Some people say that too much
attention and too many resources are given to the protection of wild
animals and birds. Do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

In recent years, the debate surrounding the allocation of resources and

attention to the protection of wild animals and birds has intensified. While some
argue that too much focus is given to this issue, I firmly believe that
the preservation of wildlife is of paramount importance and deserves the
resources and attention it receives.
Firstly, the conservation of wild animals and birds is essential to maintaining
the delicate balance of ecosystems. Each species plays a unique role in
their habitats, and the loss of these species can have far-reaching consequences,
including the collapse of entire ecosystems. For example, the disappearance of a
single predator can lead to an overpopulation of prey species, which in turn can
damage plant life and disrupt the ecological balance.
Therefore, allocating sufficient resources to protect these species contributes to
the overall health of the environment and the planet.
Secondly, preserving wildlife has significant economic benefits. Ecotourism,
which revolves around the appreciation and exploration of nature and wildlife, is a
rapidly growing industry. Many countries rely on this sector to generate revenue
and create jobs, making it essential to protect and conserve wildlife populations.
Without allocating adequate resources and attention to the conservation of wild
animals and birds, these economic opportunities could be lost, leading to negative
consequences for local communities.
Finally, wild animals and birds serve as vital resources for scientific research
and medical advancements. Many species possess unique traits and abilities that
can help researchers develop new treatments and therapies for various diseases.
For instance, the venom of certain snakes has been used to develop life-saving
medications, while the study of migratory birds has led to a better understanding of
navigation and climate change. Therefore, protecting wildlife is an investment in
the future of human knowledge and well-being.
In conclusion, I disagree with the notion that too much attention and resources
are dedicated to the protection of wild animals and birds. I wholeheartedly believe
that investment should be given to this cause for the benefit of all.
In contrast: it is wrong to use up precious resources on animals/ the costs of
conservation
-allow nature to take its course and let failing species die out protect vulnerable
species damages the ecology of the earth
- đề cập đến chính phủ dùng tiền phát triển đường xã, phúc lợi, dịch vụ công
cộng…..

Some people think zoos are cruel and all zoos should be closed. However,
some people think zoos can help protect rare animals. Discuss both these
views and give your own opinion.
Numerous individuals have voiced concerns regarding the conditions within
zoos, calling for their closure due to the inhumane treatment of animals
in artificial enclosures. However, others argue that zoos play a crucial role in
wildlife conservation. In my opinion, zoos serve as a last resort for
many endangered species threatened by poaching and should, therefore, be
maintained.
On the one hand, animal rights activists have valid reasons for claiming that
zoos can be cruel. These facilities often provide inadequate representations of the
animals' natural habitats and are typically too small to house them comfortably.
Many zoo animals are not as healthy as their wild counterparts since they have
scheduled feeding times and no need to hunt for food. As a result, they may become
unhealthy and have shorter lifespans. For instance, research has shown that polar
bears in captivity generally have shorter lifespans compared to their wild
counterparts, as the diet provided to polar bears in captivity is
often insufficiently varied and lacks the nutritional balance they would receive in
the wild.
On the other hand, zoos offer protection against poachers by providing a
secure environment that is unavailable in the wild. Poaching has become a
significant issue in recent years, leading to the extinction of various species. Zoos
are controlled environments where animals are constantly monitored and
protected by security personnel. In Africa, for example, zoos have been used
to safeguard endangered rhino species, successfully saving numerous species from
the brink of extinction. Thus, zoos can be considered a necessary evil for the
continued survival of wildlife.
In conclusion, while there are moral concerns surrounding
the confinement of animals in zoos, the potential threat of poaching justifies their
existence. In my opinion, they should be preserved and promoted as this is one of
the only ways we can help species on the verge of extinction.

ANIMAL TESTING
-many famous lifesaving drugs were invented in this way, and animal
experiments may help us to find more cures in the future. Indeed, possibly even a
cure for cancer and AIDS. Furthermore, the animals that are used are not usually
wild but are bred especially for experiments. Therefore, they believe it is not true
that animal experiments are responsible for reducing the number of wild animals on
the planet. / a certain amount of suffering on the part of mice or rats can be justified
if human lives are saved.

- animal experiments are unkind and cause animals a lot of pain. Ex, laboratory
mice may be given an illness so the effectiveness of new drugs can be measured. +
Many tests are not really important, -- animals are not only used to test new
medicines but also new cosmetics( non-medical products), which could be tested on
humans instead/ use alternative methods of research/ reliable alternatives
to animal experimentation. + Another issue is that sometimes an experiment on
animals gives us the wrong result because animals’ bodies are not exactly the
same as our own.
The advantages of the spread of English as a global language will continue
to outweigh its disadvantages. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

English has become a global language, spoken by millions of people worldwide for
years. Some people think the benefits of English becoming a global language will
remain greater than any drawbacks it may have, and I wholeheartedly agree.

One major advantage of English as a global language is that

it facilitates communication between people from different countries and cultures.
English is the language of business, science, and technology, and it allows people
to share ideas and information across borders. This can lead to greater
understanding and cooperation between nations, which can have positive effects
on international relations. For instance, when a Japanese company wants to do
business with a German company, they may use English as a common language to
communicate and negotiate the terms of their partnership, as both parties may
not speak each other's native language.

Furthermore, the spread of English has also led to increased opportunities for
education and employment. English proficiency is often a requirement for higher
education and many jobs, especially in fields such as finance, marketing,
and tourism. By learning English, people from non-English-speaking countries can
gain access to these opportunities and improve their quality of life. To illustrate, a
student from a non-English speaking country who learns English may have the
opportunity to attend a prestigious university in an English-speaking country and
pursue a degree in their desired field. This can lead to better job prospects,
higher salaries, and a higher standard of living.

In conclusion, the benefits of the spread of English as a global language are more
significant and far-reaching than any drawbacks as English can facilitate cross-
border communication more easily and increase the social mobility of millions of
people around the world.
Many companies sponsor sports as a way to advertise themselves. Some
people think this is good for the world of sports, while others think there
are disadvantages of this. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

Undoubtedly, the way companies advertise their products has transformed over
time, and nowadays, sponsorship has gained more popularity. Many
companies promote their brands by sponsoring sports events or athletes, which
helps them reach a wider audience. While some people argue that this
advertising practice has numerous advantages, others think that it has more
disadvantages. Personally, I believe that the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages.
Firstly, one of the significant benefits of sponsoring sports is that it boosts the
sales of the respective companies. For instance, if a company sponsors a
globally renowned sports team or athlete, they get the opportunity to display their
logo on jerseys( áo thi đấu), posters, and banners. As a result, the company's
products attract the attention of the audience, and it becomes a household name
in the targeted society (trở thành một cái tên quen thuộc trong thị trường mục
tiêu.).
On the other hand, it is essential to acknowledge that sponsorship has some
drawbacks. For instance, some companies may use sporting events to promote
their low-quality products, which can have adverse effects on consumers'
health. Moreover, if a sponsored athlete gets injured or falls ill during
a competition, the company's investment is wasted. Similarly, if the athlete is
involved in illegal activities, such as match-fixing or using performance-
enhancing drugs, the company's reputation is at stake, and it undermines the
essence of sports.
a means to remain competitive in the market, and athletes have the
responsibility to perform well without getting involved in any scandal.
Nowadays it is easy to apply for and be given a credit card. However, some
people experience problems when they are not able to pay their debts
back. Do the advantages of credit cards outweigh the disadvantages?

In the modern era, obtaining a credit card has become a simple

process, granting( hỗ trợ) individuals greater access to funds and enabling them
to make purchases with ease. Despite the potential issues that may arise for those
unable to repay their debts, I believe the advantages of credit cards significantly
outweigh the disadvantages.

One of the primary advantages of credit cards is the convenience they offer.
Credit cards enable users to make purchases without carrying large sums of
cash, minimizing the risk of theft or loss. Additionally, credit cards allow
individuals to make purchases online or in foreign countries,
simplifying transactions and increasing accessibility to a wider range of products
and services. Furthermore, credit cards provide financial flexibility, as they enable
users to cover unexpected expenses and pay off the balance over time, thereby
easing potential financial stress.

Another notable advantage of credit cards is the consumer protection they

provide. Many credit card companies offer features such as fraud protection,
allowing users to dispute unauthorized charges and avoid financial loss. This
added security promotes consumer confidence in making transactions, both online
and in person. An example is the fraud protection feature provided by Visa.
Imagine a situation where a cardholder discovers a fraudulent online transaction.
Visa's fraud protection policy allows this cardholder to dispute the charge, and after
a brief investigation, the credit card company confirms the transaction was indeed
unauthorized.

the misuse (lạm dụng) of credit cards can result in financial difficulties for
some individuals,