In some countries university students live at home with their family while they study, whereas in

other countries students attend university in another city.

Do you think the benefits of living away from home during university outweigh the disadvantages?

Live independently in another city:

- Encourage personal growth, as students must take full responsibility for their daily lives:
managing finances, balancing academic work, and solving problem without immediate parental
assistances
- Not only foster self-reliance but also help students develop essential life skills: time-management
and decision making = highly valued in both the workplace and the society.
- Diverse cultures and perspectives, enhancing their ability to adapt and interact with a variety of
people => can be incredibly enriching on both personal and professional level
Living at home:
- Offer certain advantages, particularly in terms of emotional and financial support
- Many students experience stress and anxiety due to the pressures of university life, such as
workload, social adjustment, and decisions about their future careers
- Being close to family can provide crucial emotional support, helping students navigate
challenging situations and maintain their well-being
- Alleviate the financial burden associated with higher education, as students can save money for
their other living expenses, thus reducing financial strain and allowing them to focus on their
studies

Some people want governments to spend money looking for life on other planets. Others, however,
think this is a waste of public money when there are so many problems on earth.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Invest in space exploration:

- As the population continues to grow rapidly, we may eventually face several resource shortages,
which could lead to widespread instability.
- Environmental issues such as climate change and the destruction of natural habitats are already
creating significant challenges for life on Earth.
- In the worst-case scenarios, Earth could become uninhabitable due to the ongoing environmental
and resource challenges.
- If we could discover another planet that could sustain human life, it might offer a long-term
solution for future generations.
- However, this idea is still highly speculative and unrealistic in the near future.
- The financial costs involved in space exploration are enormous, and the chances of finding a
suitable planet in a reasonable timeframe are extremely low
 I believe it is more practical to focus on solving the problems we already face here on Earth
A waste of public money:
- The priority should be addressing the pressing issues that are the result of human activity, such as
environmental degradation and resource depletion.
- Public funds should be allocated to projects that promote sustainability and environmental
protection.
- For example, innovations like lab-grown meat could help address food shortages, while
renewable energy sources could reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
- These solutions not only have the potential to tackle urgent problems but also offer practical
benefits that can be implemented immediately.

Some countries have introduced laws to limit working hours for employees. Why are these laws
introduced? Do you think they are a positive or negative development?
Reasons:
- Laws limiting working hours for employees have been introduced to protect workers’ health and
well-being.
- Can lead to exhaustion, stress, and various health problems, including heart disease and anxiety
- Limiting working hours => ensure that employees are not overburdened, which can improve both
their physical and mental health.
- Reduce absenteeism caused by burnout and help maintain a motivated and productive workforce
- When workers are well-rested and less stress, they are likely to perform better in their roles,
resulting in higher job satisfaction and efficiency.
- Promote a better work-life balance, which is increasingly important in today fast-paced society
- Many people struggle to find time for their personal lives, family, and relaxation due to the
demands of their jobs
- Limiting working hours => have more time to pursue personal interests, spend time with loved
ones, and rest.
- This balance can lead to greater overall happiness and well-being
- In the long run => contribute to a more engaged and loyal workforce
- While some may argue that shorter working hours might reduce productivity, the overall benefits
to workers’ health and job satisfaction outweigh any potential drawbacks
Conclusion: Positive development = contribute to workers' health, well-being, and work-life balance,
ultimately fostering a more productive and satisfied workforce. While some may argue that these laws
could reduce economic output, the long-term benefits for both individuals and society make them a
worthwhile investment.

It is important for all towns and cities to have large public outdoor places like squares and parks.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement.
Their positive impact on physical and mental health:
- Urban living often comes with stress, noise, and limited green spaces, which can negatively affect
people’s well-being
 - Access to parks and squares offer a vital escape, allowing residents to relax and reconnect with
nature.
- Numerous studies have demonstrated that spending time in green spaces can reduce stress,
improve mood, and alleviate symptoms of anxiety and depression.
- Encourage physical activity, whether through walking, jogging, or playing sports, which can help
combat lifestyle-related health issues like obesity and cardiovascular diseases that are common in
urban populations.
 Play a significant role in improving the overall health of city dwellers
Essential for fostering social cohesion and community engagement:
- In crowded urban areas, it can be difficult for people to meet and interact with their neighbors
- Public parks and squares provide venues for individuals and families to gather, socialize, and
participate in recreational activities.
- Offer opportunities or cultural events, festivals, and gatherings that help build a sense of
community and belonging.
- Serve as inclusive space where people of all ages, backgrounds, and social classes can interact,
reducing social isolation and promoting diversity
 By providing a shared space for relaxation and recreation, these areas help strengthen the social
fabric of cities

Some people believe that it is best to accept a bad situation, such as an unsatisfactory job or
shortage of money. Others argue that it is better to try and improve such situations.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Accepting a bad situation can sometimes be the most practical option
- Ex: individuals in unsatisfactory jobs might choose to stay due to financial stability, fearing that
seeking a new job could lead to uncertainty or unemployment.
- Similarly, those facing financial struggles might accept their current situation rather than risking
further debt or failure in attempting to improve it.
- In such cases, acceptance may offer a sense of security and avoid further stress and complications
It is better to take action and try to improve the situation:
- Taking steps to find a better job, such as acquiring additional qualifications or networking, can
lead to personal growth and greater job satisfaction.
- Similarly, actively working to improve financial circumstances through budgeting, reducing
unnecessary expenses, or seeking new income opportunities can create a sense of control and lead
to long-term benefits.
- People who choose to take charge of their circumstances may also develop resilience, problem-
solving skills, and a sense of accomplishment that would not come from simply accepting the
situation.
In my view:
- While acceptance can sometimes be a practical response, striving to improve a bad situation is
usually more empowering
 - Change may be challenging, but it offers greater opportunities for personal growth, achievement,
and a more fulfilling life
- Individuals who proactively work toward solutions are likely to experience better long-term
outcomes.

Some people feel that manufacturers and supermarkets have the responsibility to reduce the
amount of packaging of goods. Others argue that customers should avoid buying goods with a lot of
packaging.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Manufacturers and supermarkets should reduce packaging = these businesses have the power to make a
significant impact:
- Manufacturers decide what kind of packaging to use, and they can choose eco-friendly materials,
like recyclable or biodegradable packaging => help reduce waste and also save money => lower
prices for consumers.
- Supermarkets promote products with less packaging and encourage customers to buy more
sustainable options.
 These companies, because of their influence and resources, can make a big difference in solving
the packaging problem.

Consumers should take responsibilities for reducing waste:

- Believe that customers can make a difference by choosing products with less or no packaging.
- Ex: Buying in bulk or selecting items with minimal packaging helps reduce waste.
- Use reusable bags or containers = cut down on the need for extra packaging.
- By making smarter choices, consumers can push businesses to produce products with less
packaging.

In my opinion:
- While it is important for consumers to make responsible choices, manufacturers and supermarkets
should have the main responsibility.
- These companies have the resources and ability to create larger changes, and they can lead the
way in reducing packaging waste.
- Consumers can support these changes by buying more sustainable products.

Many people believe that global environmental problems should be dealt with internationally
rather than domestically. What is your opinion?
My opinion: I believe that a combined approach involving both international and domestic efforts is
essential for effective solutions.
Environmental issues, by the nature, are global:
- Climate change, for instance, is a prime example of a problem that requires worldwide
cooperation
- Greenhouse gas emissions from one country can impact the entire planet, making it clear that no
single nation can tackle these problems alone.
- International collaborations, such as research and technological exchanges between countries,
highlight the need for collective action to share resources and knowledge for effective
environmental protection.
- Without such cooperation, isolated national efforts may not be sufficient to address the global
scale of the problem.

Domestic policies are also vital in addressing environmental challenges:

- National governments can implement policies that directly impact local ecosystems and
communities
- For example, countries can enforce regulations such as carbon taxes, waste management
programs, or renewable energy incentives
- Nations like Sweden and Costa Rica have shown that strong domestic policies can significantly
reduce environmental harm and promote sustainability.
- These policies can be more flexible and tailored to a country’s specific needs and circumstances,
making them effective

In some countries, there has been an increase in the number of parents who are choosing to educate
their children themselves at home instead of sending them to school. Do the advantages of home
education outweigh the disadvantages?

Home education = the ability to provide a personalized learning experience

- Unlike traditional schools, where the curriculum is designed for large groups, home education
allows parent to tailor lessons to suit their child’s specific learning style, pace, and interests.
- This flexibility can benefit children who struggle in conventional classrooms, as they can learn at
their own pace without feeling left behind.
- Children who excel in particular subjects can progress more quickly, ensuring they stay challenge
and engaged
- Home education allows for a flexible schedule, making it easier to incorporate field trips or
hands-on experience that may not be feasible in a school setting.

Notable disadvantages to home education – Lack of socialization

- Traditional schools provide a structured environment where children can interact with peers,
develop social skills, and learn to work with teams.
- Home-educated children may miss out on these social interactions, which are crucial for
developing communication and teamwork skills.
 - Parents may struggle with teaching certain subjects, especially in areas where they lack expertise,
such as advanced mathematics or foreign languages, potentially limiting the scope of the child’s
education.
Conclusion: With the right resources and dedication, home education can be a highly effective alternative
to traditional schooling.

For many people, the reason they work hard is to earn money. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?

Opinion: I believe it is not the sole reason why individuals strive in their careers. Other factors such as
personal fulfillment, career advancement, and a sense of purpose also play crucial roles in motivating
people to work hard.

Secure a stable income, which enables them to support themselves and their families:
- Money provides individuals with the means to meet their basic needs, such as food, shelter, and
healthcare, while also offering opportunities for leisure and personal growth.
- In this sense,