TOPIC: CULTURE

Nowadays, women as well as men work full-time. Therefore, women and men should share
household tasks equally. To what extent do you agree or disagree? (Band 9)
It is widely recognized that the paradigm of work has shifted, with both women and men engaging in full-time
employment. This has sparked a debate on whether household chores should be equally divided between
partners. I agree with the idea of sharing domestic responsibilities, but believe the application of 'equality' in
this context should be nuanced rather than rigid.
On the surface, the argument for an equal division of household chores appears straightforward and justified.
When both partners work full-time, it seems logical to assume that neither has more time than the other to
dedicate to domestic responsibilities. Sharing tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and managing bills would, in
theory, prevent one partner from bearing a disproportionate burden, fostering a sense of fairness and mutual
respect within the relationship. This arrangement could contribute to a more balanced partnership, where both
individuals feel supported both in their careers and at home.
However, the concept of dividing tasks equally is not as straightforward as it seems. Equality does not
necessarily mean splitting every task down the middle. Each relationship is unique, and what constitutes a fair
share of work can vary significantly between couples. For some, an equal division might mean one person does
more cooking while the other takes on more cleaning, depending on each person's skills and preferences. The
key is not a rigid 50/50 split but a flexible arrangement that feels equitable to both partners.
Moreover, considering that full-time jobs differ vastly in terms of hours, stress levels, and mental exhaustion,
the expectation for an exact split of household duties may not always be practical or fair. A partner working 60-
hour weeks in a high-stress job may not have the same energy or availability for household tasks as one with a
standard 40-hour job. Thus, insisting on an equal division without considering these factors could lead to unfair
pressure and dissatisfaction, undermining the very goal of sharing tasks to achieve balance and harmony.
In conclusion, while the principle of sharing household tasks between working partners is grounded in fairness,
the application of this principle must be nuanced and adaptable to each couple's unique circumstances. Equality
should be measured not by an exact division of tasks but by the effort and intention to support one another,
taking into account the varying demands of each partner's job.

People’s shopping habits depend more on the age group that they belong to than on other factors. To
what extent do you agree or disagree? (Band 9)
There is a common belief that the shopping tendencies of individuals are heavily reliant on the age demographic
they are part of, more so than any other influences. While age can certainly have an impact, I maintain that
other factors can be equally, if not more, influential in shaping a person's shopping habits.
It is true that observable trends exist within different age groups. Teenagers and young adults, influenced by
peer pressure and social media, often prioritize trendy fashion and the latest gadgets. Older adults, on the other
hand, may prioritize health-related products, comfort, and convenience. However, it is essential to recognize
that these are broad generalizations that do not account for the diversity within each age group.
Economic status is a crucial factor that can override age-related trends. A young adult with a high disposable
income may exhibit spending habits more aligned with those of an older, affluent individual, prioritizing luxury
brands and experiences. In contrast, an older person with limited financial means may be more frugal and
prioritize basic necessities.
Cultural and regional influences also play a significant role. In cultures that emphasize thrift and practicality,
individuals may be less inclined towards impulsive purchases, regardless of age. For instance, Japanese

1
consumers are known for their meticulous research and preference for high-quality, durable products, whereas
consumers in some Western cultures may be more susceptible to impulse buying and trend-driven purchases.
Shopping habits can also be shaped by personal values and beliefs. For example, an environmentally conscious
individual, irrespective of age, may prioritize sustainable and ethical a health-conscious consumer may opt for
organic or locally sourced foods, regardless of their age group.
In conclusion, while age undoubtedly provides a framework for understanding general shopping tendencies, it
would be an oversimplification to view it as the primary determinant. Factors such as economic status, cultural
influences, and personal values can play a more profound role in sculpting individual shopping habits.

While people in developing countries are happier than in the past, people in developed countries are less
happy. Why is this the case? What can be learnt from this? (Band 8.5 8999)
Recent trends suggest a paradox in global happiness levels, with residents in developing countries reporting
higher levels of happiness than in the past, while their counterparts in developed nations seem to be
experiencing a decline. This essay will explore the reasons behind this phenomenon before discussing the
lessons that can be learned from it.
One primary factor contributing to greater happiness in developing countries is the significant improvement in
basic living standards. For instance, access to healthcare, education, and technology has increased markedly,
leading toa newfound sense of optimism and empowerment among these populations. In contrast, people in
developed countries, despite having their basic needs met, often face a paradox of choice. The overwhelming
array of options in various aspects of life, from careers to consumer goods, can lead to anxiety and a sense of
dissatisfaction. Additionally, the fast-paced, competitive lifestyle prevalent in developed countries can take a
toll on mental health, fostering a culture where stress and burnout are common.
This disparity in happiness levels teaches several important lessons. First, economic development, albeit crucial
to improving living standards, does not guarantee happiness. Once material wealth passes a particular threshold,
additional gains produce less significant change to people's lives and, by extension, their satisfaction levels.
This testifies of the law of diminishing returns: the more one has, the less one gains from additional increments.
Moreover, the experiences of developed countries highlight the need for a balanced approach to life, where
material success is not the sole focus. Prioritizing mental health, fostering community connections, and
cultivating gratitude for non-material aspects of life are essential for overall well-being.
In conclusion, the contrasting states of happiness in developing and developed countries are driven by a
multitude of factors, ranging from differences in economic development and their living environment to
personal challenges. From this, we can glean that while economic progress is essential, it must be balanced with
other aspects of life like mental health and community engagement to foster true contentment.

In today's world of advanced science and technology, we still greatly value our artists such as musicians,
painters and writers. What can the arts tell us about life that science and technology cannot? (Band 8.5
8999)
In a world increasingly dominated by advanced science and technology, the arts continue to hold a place of
reverence and admiration. This is attributed to their unique perspectives on life, which science and technology
cannot replicate.
Firstly, the arts celebrate and cultivate creativity, which often gets negated by logical reasoning in the scientific
and technological fields. While science and technology deal with collecting empirical data and analyzing it
objectively, arts celebrate imagination, which is subjective in nature. For instance, a painting can evoke deep

2
emotions and provoke thought through abstract forms and colors, something that a scientific report cannot
achieve. By the same token, music can express feelings and moods in ways that transcend words, touching on
aspects of the human experience that remain elusive to scientific explanation. This emphasis on creativity
fosters innovative thinking and encourages us to explore diverse perspectives, essential for both personal
growth and societal advances.
Secondly, the arts preserve and convey a range of historical narratives, traditions, and cultural nuances of
societies. Unlike science and technology, which seek universal truths and solutions, the arts are inherently tied
to the cultural and historical contexts from which they emerge. Traditional dances, indigenous crafts, and oral
storytelling traditions, for instance, offer a window into the values, beliefs, and experiences of particular
communities. These artistic expressions provide unique insights into the human condition, enriching our
understanding of the world and fostering appreciation for cultural diversity. Scientific and technological
advances, while valuable, cannot fully capture the nuances and complexities of human history and culture in the
same way that the arts can.
In conclusion, as technology and science continue to advance, the enduring value of the arts lies in their ability
to nurture creativity, preserve cultural heritage, and offer unique perspectives on the human experience. By
celebrating imagination, fostering cultural understanding, and encouraging diverse ways of thinking, the arts
remain indispensable to our society, complementing and enriching the contributions of science and technology.

It is important for all towns and cities to have large public spaces such as squares and parks. Do you
agree or disagree with this statement?
It is often proposed that every town and city should feature large public areas, such as parks and squares. While
acknowledging the reasons for this proposal, I believe that it seems more idealistic than practical.
Proponents of expansive public spaces argue based on multiple benefits. First, public areas like parks serve as
the lungs of a city, offering a respite amidst concrete jungles, which aids in mitigating pollution and providing
citizens with a touch of nature. London's Hyde Park or New York's Central Park exemplify this, becoming
verdant oases in otherwise bustling metropolises. Beyond the environmental benefits, open spaces like squares
play a pivotal role in fostering community bonds. They serve as venues for public events, and spontaneous
gatherings, and are often symbolic of a city's identity. Piazza San Marco in Venice, for instance, has historically
been a hub of gatherings, celebrations, and even political events.
However, mandating every town and city to have such extensive public spaces is not without challenges. For
space-strapped cities like Hong Kong or Tokyo, every square foot comes at a staggering premium. In such
densely populated areas, designating large plots solely as public spaces could exacerbate housing challenges or
skyrocket real estate prices, making living conditions even more cramped. By the same token, in historical
towns, with ancient infrastructure and narrow alleyways, retrofitting public spaces might be tantamount to
demolishing heritage sites, thus eroding the very character that defines them.
In conclusion, while the values of spacious parks, squares, and other public spaces are undeniable, I would
contend that the idea of universally embedding them in every town or city's blueprint is not always viable.

3
The benefits of the spread of English as a global language will continue to outweigh the drawbacks. To
what extent do you agree or disagree? (Band 9)
There are those who believe that the advantages of the spread of English as a lingua franca will continue to
overshadow the drawbacks. I also hold this view.
Granted, one might argue that as English gains prominence, many languages, particularly those spoken by
smaller communities, face the threat of marginalization and eventual extinction. This is not hypothetical; it is
happening in many parts of the world, including Vietnam, where English proficiency is increasingly valued,
leading a significant number of young people to prioritize English over their native tongue. Critics emphasize
that the death of one language would cause substantial identity and culture losses, as language is believed to be
the DNA of a society, carrying within it the stories, values, and beliefs that have been passed down through
generations.
However, it must be recognized that governments and communities are increasingly recognizing the importance
of language preservation. Efforts to revitalize endangered languages are gaining momentum, with initiatives
ranging from language immersion programs to the creation of educational materials and media in minority
languages. Success stories of this can be seen in Ireland, where the government has successfully revitalized the
use of the Irish language (Gaeilge) through initiatives like Gaeltacht regions, where Irish is the primary
language of daily life, and by promoting its use in education and media.
As the concerns over language loss are being widely addressed, I am convinced that the spread of English as a
global language is a net positive. First, it has revolutionized international communication and collaboration. By
providing a common language for business, science, and diplomacy, English has greatly facilitated cross-border
interactions, fostering greater efficiency and understanding. The increasing use of English also allows
communities worldwide to share their stories, traditions, and perspectives with a global audience, breaking
down stereotypes and fostering appreciation for diverse cultures. For instance, the availability of literature,
films, and music in English exposes people to different cultural expressions, promoting cross-cultural dialogue
and understanding.
In conclusion, while concerns about the potential decline of other languages are valid, I believe that the benefits
of English as a global language will continue to outweigh the risks. The ongoing efforts to preserve linguistic
diversity, coupled with the positive impacts of English on communication, collaboration, and cultural exchange,
make it a powerful tool for connecting people and fostering a more interconnected and understanding world.

Some people believe that it is a good idea that older people continue to work if it is possible for them to do
so. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? (Band 8.5 8899)
It is often proposed that older people should be allowed to remain in the workforce if they so desire. I also hold
this view.
One common counterargument is that older people lack the physical and mental capacity to work effectively.
Proponents of this thinking cite numerous studies showing that health often declines with age. However, this
perspective glosses over the current leaps in medical technologies that have significantly improved the well-
being of older adults. In other words, we need to dispel the stereotype that age equates to incapacity.
It is also important to note that continued employment can be immensely beneficial for the elderly themselves.
Work provides structure, social interaction, and a sense of purpose, all of which are vital for mental well-being.
It also promotes physical activity and cognitive engagement, mitigating the risk of age-related decline. Research
has shown that individuals who remain active in their later years often experience better overall health and
longevity.

4
The argument in favor of allowing people of retirement age to continue working is further strengthened by the
global trend of aging populations. Countries with a growing proportion of older citizens, including Sweden,
Japan, and Germany, face increased pressure on social welfare systems and pension funds. Allowing and
encouraging older individuals to continue working can alleviate this burden, contributing to economic stability
and reducing the dependency ratio.
To summarize, I strongly advocate for the inclusion of older individuals in the labor workforce. Not only can it
improve their wellbeing, but it can also address economic challenges posed by aging populations.

Some believe that younger family members should be legally responsible for supporting older family
members when they become physically, mentally, and financially unable to look after themselves. To
what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some propose that younger relatives should be legally obligated to provide support when their elders become
unable to care for themselves. I disagree with this proposal, despite acknowledging the reasons for it.
Proponents of legally enforced familial responsibility often base their arguments on cultural traditions and a
sense of moral duty. In many cultures, caring for aging parents is seen as a filial obligation, a way of repaying
them for the care they provided in one's youth. They argue that the state should step in when this natural order
breaks down. Furthermore, they contend that such laws could alleviate the financial burden on social security
systems and ensure that elderly individuals receive adequate care. Imposing a legal framework, they believe,
would provide a safety net for vulnerable seniors and reinforce the importance of familial responsibility.
However, legally mandating such care is fraught with problems. Firstly, it assumes a uniformity of family
circumstances that simply does not exist. Family relationships can be strained or even abusive, and forcing
individuals into caregiving roles in such situations could be detrimental to both parties. Moreover, it overlooks
the diverse financial and personal situations of younger family members. Imposing a legal obligation to provide
financial support could place an undue burden on individuals already struggling with their own financial
obligations, such as raising children or paying off student loans. For example, a young adult just starting their
career may be in no position to financially support an aging parent, potentially jeopardizing their own future.
Finally, enforcing such laws would be a logistical nightmare, requiring complex legal frameworks to determine
the level of care required and the capacity of family members to provide it.
In conclusion, while the desire to ensure the well-being of elderly individuals is laudable, legally obligating
younger family members to provide care is neither practical nor ethical. It ignoresthe complexities of family
dynamics, imposes undue burdens, and presents significant challenges for implementation.

Some propose that younger relatives should be legally obligated to provide support when their elders become
unable to care for themselves, both physically, mentally, and financially. I also hold this view.
There are several compelling reasons to legally enforce familial responsibility in this context. Firstly, it upholds
the fundamental principle of reciprocity within families. Having benefited from the care and support of their
elders in their younger years, it is only right that younger family members should, in turn, provide assistance
when their relatives are in need. Moreover, a legal framework ensures that elderly individuals receive the care
they require, even when family members are unwilling to provide it voluntarily. This is particularly important in
cases where neglect or abandonment might otherwise occur. Thirdly, legislating eldercare responsibility can
help alleviate the strain on public resources. With aging populations placing increasing pressure on social
security and healthcare systems, a greater emphasis on familial responsibility can help ensure a more
sustainable model of eldercare.

5
Admittedly, implementing such a system presents challenges. Determining the level of support required and
assessing the financial capacity of younger relatives could be complex. However, these challenges are far from
insurmountable. Courts could establish clear guidelines, taking into account individual circumstances and
utilizing means-tested assessments to determine appropriate levels of support, as is done in child support cases.
Another concern is the potential for strained family relationships. Nevertheless, mediation and family
counseling services could be made available to help families navigate these challenges and reach amicable
solutions. The government should introduce relevant laws and regulations to deal with the problems in
individual cases.
In conclusion, legally binding younger family members to care for their aging relatives is a morally sound and
socially responsible approach to eldercare. While challenges exist in implementing such a system, they can be
effectively addressed through careful planning and the establishment of clear guidelines and support services.

The age-old tradition of younger generations caring for their elders is deeply rooted in many cultures. Recently,
debates have emerged about turning this cultural obligation into a legal responsibility. While the intent behind
this shift is commendable, I would argue that implementing it could lead to numerous challenges.
Supporters of legalizing this responsibility posit that it is a continuation of the cycle of care; many elderly
individuals were once primary caregivers for their younger family members. Their stance becomes particularly
poignant given the rising instances of elder neglect globally. By making it a legal responsibility, not only could
it reinforce family bonds, but it could also alleviate pressure on state-funded elder care facilities. In fact, there
are many countries that have already adopted such measures, like Singapore, citing the strengthening of familial
ties and shared responsibilities.
However, making this ethical duty a legal one is fraught with complications. First and foremost, not all families
have the financial bandwidth to support their elderly members. By legally binding them, it could push
households further into economic distress. Furthermore, there would be a challenge in defining the extent of the
support: whether it should merely be financial or should encompass emotional and physical care. If both, it
would also raise the question of how to effectively measure or standardize it. Another point to consider is the
potential for misuse. Legal mandates could pave the way for familial feuds, where the elderly might feel
compelled to take legal action against their kin, straining relationships even further.
In conclusion, while the idea of legally binding younger family members to care for their elders appears noble
and just, its implementation and repercussions are not straightforward. A more nuanced approach, which blends
policy with emotional intelligence and social understanding, might be the key. After all, we should bear in mind
that laws can govern actions. but they cannot always mandate genuine care or love.

Historical objects should be brought back to their country of origin. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
The debate over the repatriation of historical artifacts to their countries of origin has been long-standing and
deeply divisive. While I understand the reasons why some advocate for repatriation, I hold reservations about its
practicality and broader implications.
Those in favor of repatriation often emphasize the principle of cultural justice. A case in point is the Elgin
Marbles, currently housed in the British Museum but originally from Greece. Many Greeks believe that these
artifacts are essential to their national identity and history. This sentiment is not unique to Greece but resonates
in various corners of the world. Returning such artifacts can be seen as a way to redress historical wrongs and
show respect for cultural heritage.

6
However, the concept of repatriation becomes murkier when we dive into the intricacies of determining an
artifact's "origin". Many historical items, like those from the ancient Persian Empire, now found in various
European museums, come from regions that have experienced significant geopolitical shifts over time.
Identifying the rightful owner in such situations is not just challenging but might also inflame current
geopolitical disputes.
Moreover, there is a practical argument to consider: the preservation and dissemination of knowledge. Artifacts,
when housed by renowned international museums. are often meticulously maintained, studied, and displayed to
vast audiences. For instance. the Elgin Marbles, under the guardianship of the British Museum, have been well-
preserved and have garnered global attention. This broad exposure can lead to a more profound and widespread
appreciation of the culture they represent.
To summarize, while the moral argument for repatriation is compelling, I would contend that the logistical
challenges in determining artifact origins and the benefits of keeping them in internationally recognized
institutions make the issue far from straightforward.

Some people say that the increasing business and cultural contact between countries is a positive
development. While others think that many countries will lose their national identities as a result. Discuss
both views and give your opinion.
The intensifying business and cultural exchanges among nations have sparked a debate. Some argue this trend
leads to the erosion of national identities, whereas others see it as a beneficial development. This essay will
closely examine both viewpoints before concluding I agree with the latter.
Critics of global interconnectivity worry about the dilution of unique cultural heritages. They argue that as
countries engage more in international trade and cultural exchange, there is a tendency to adopt a homogenized,
global culture. This could mean local traditions, languages, and customs may gradually fade, overshadowed by
dominant international trends. For example, the widespread popularity of Hollywood movies could be seen as
encroaching on indigenous film industries. However, this perspective overlooks the resilience of local cultures.
Rather than being passively eclipsed, many cultures adapt and incorporate new influences, leading to a dynamic
evolution rather than a loss of identity. The global success of Japanese anime, which blends traditional Japanese
storytelling with Western animation techniques, exemplifies this adaptive cultural synthesis.
I side with those who view the increase in business and cultural contacts between countries positively. This
interaction fosters mutual understanding, economic growth, and the sharing of beneficial practices and
innovations. For instance, international collaborations in technology and science have led to advances that
benefit all participating countries. Moreover, exposure to diverse cultures enriches societies, broadening the
horizons of individuals and fostering a more inclusive worldview. Cultural exchange often leads to a deeper
appreciation of one's own heritage as well, as seen in the resurgence of interest in local traditions and languages
among younger generations who are more globally connected.
In conclusion, while the concerns about national identity in an interconnected world are understandable, I would
contend that the benefits of increased business and cultural contact, including mutual understanding, economic
growth, and the dynamic evolution of cultures, far outweigh the risks of cultural homogenization. Embracing
global connectivity while cherishing and preserving local identities seems not only possible but beneficial in
today's increasingly globalized world.

7
In today's globalized world, the growing business and cultural interactions among nations stir a debate. Whilst
some consider this as a step forward, others fear a loss of national identities. This essay will explore both
perspectives before showing my final thoughts.
Proponents of increasing international business and cultural contact argue that these exchanges are beneficial.
First, they foster economic growth, with countries capitalizing on their strengths and importing what they lack,
leading to a more efficient global market. For instance, Japan's expertise in technology complements Australia's
rich natural resources. Additionally, cultural exchanges enrich societies, broadening horizons and promoting
understanding. The worldwide popularity of yoga, originating from India, exemplifies how cultural elements
can be embraced globally, enhancing people's lives while fostering respect for other traditions.
On the other hand, critics worry about the erosion of national identities. The influx of foreign businesses and
cultural influences can overshadow local traditions and values. For instance, American fast-food chains
proliferating worldwide often eclipse indigenous cuisines, potentially diluting culinary heritage. Moreover, the
dominance of English in international business and media can undermine native languages, risking linguistic
diversity. This loss of cultural distinctiveness is a genuine concern, as it is often the unique aspects of a culture
that foster a sense of community and belonging.
In light of the aforementioned considerations, I believe while the benefits of international interactions are
substantial, they should not come at the expense of national identities. Education plays a crucial role in
maintaining this balance. Schools should emphasize cultural literacy, teaching students to value their heritage
while respecting and understanding others. For example, a curriculum that includes local history and literature
alongside foreign languages and world history can create a well-rounded, globally aware citizenry.

In an increasingly globalized world, the surge in business and cultural interactions between nations has sparked
diverse opinions. Some individuals contend that this interconnectivity is diluting national identities, while
others, including myself, argue that it contributes positively to the global community.
On the one hand, it is understandable why some people fear that the burgeoning contact between nations will
gradually erode national identities. The influx of foreign products, services, and cultural artifacts, they say,
might overshadow local traditions and values. By the same token, global media networks can exert a dominant
influence, potentially sidelining indigenous cultures and languages. However, this thinking overlooks the fact
that interactions can actually provide platforms for cultures to shine, rather than causing them to recede. When
countries engage in cultural exchanges, they often showcase their traditions, art, and values. Events like the
Olympics or World Expos are a testament to this, where nations proudly display their heritage.
I side with those who say that increased business and cultural contact between countries is predominantly
advantageous. From an economic perspective, such interactions facilitate the sharing of best practices, leading
to more efficient and innovative industries. South Korea's technological boom, for instance, bears testimony to
its successful adaptation of technologies and business practices from the West. Aside from this, cultural
exchanges promote mutual respect and understanding, dispelling/breaking down stereotypes. The global
popularity of K-pop, for example, has sparked interest in the Korean language and history, encouraging cultural
appreciation rather than appropriation.
In conclusion, while the concerns of cultural identity erosion are valid to an extent, the myriad advantages of
cross-border interactions cannot be overlooked. When embraced judiciously, these interactions do not diminish
national identities but instead offer them a global stage to be celebrated and respected. Also, they can confer a
heap of socioeconomic benefits upon nations, making them a positive development overall.

8
In this day and age, there is a growing trend towards commercial and cultural interaction between countries the
world over. While this development may carry some potential dangers for national identity, I would argue that
the benefits it brings about are far greater and thus this is a positive development.
On the one hand, it is understandable why some people argue that growing contact between nations is a
negative thing. The key rationale is that as foreign influences, especially Western influences, permeate other
societies, more people would embrace these external ideas and begin to consider their traditional values as
obsolete, which may possibly result in loss of national identity. However, this is largely exaggerated. I believe
that instead of marginalizing traditional values, increasing globalization actually gives countries a chance to
promote their own culture to the world. Korea perfectly exemplifies this situation. The expanding presence of
Korean businesses and communities in foreign countries has been key to fostering a global appreciation of this
nation. This is a testament to the positive impacts of global integration on a country's cultural values.
On the other hand, I am of the opinion that globalization offers tremendous benefits to all countries. In terms of
business, companies now have a chance to expand to foreign markets. As a result, more jobs are created which
directly improves people's living standards. In addition, consumers also have access to a wider range of options
provided by foreign companies. For instance, in Vietnam, over the past 20 years, international firms have
helped reduce unemployment in the country as well as giving Vietnamese consumers a much wider variety of
choices. In terms of culture, foreign influences also help mitigate/ alleviate some social problems. For example,
Western thinking has dramatically reduced gender inequality in many Asian societies.
In conclusion, while growing business and cultural exchange between countries may have some drawbacks, I
contend that they are eclipsed by the more substantial benefits of this trend.

People nowadays tend to have children at older ages. What are the reasons? Is it a positive or negative
development?
There has been a trend towards individuals having children at later stages of their lives. This can be influenced
by several factors. While some view it with skepticism, I contend that postponing parenthood is predominantly
a positive development for both the parents and the child.
The increasing age of first-time parents can be attributed to two main factors. One of these is a shift towards
prioritizing higher education and establishing careers before embarking on the journey of parenthood. Modern
society places a premium on financial stability, pushing individuals to secure their economic futures before
introducing a child into the equation. In addition to this, advances in medical science have also made it possible
for individuals to safely conceive at older ages, removing the biological pressure that once existed.
While this trend might be seen as a departure from traditional norms, there are definite advantages to having
children later in life. Older parents typically possess greater emotional maturity and life experience, equipping
them with the wisdom to navigate the complexities of parenthood. Also, financial security, achieved from years
of working, ensures that the child can be provided with quality education and healthcare. Moreover, older
parents, having fulfilled a significant portion of their personal and professional aspirations, can often dedicate
more time and focus on their child's upbringing. For instance, older parents might have more flexible work
schedules or even the possibility of early retirement, allowing them to be more present during their child's
formative years.
In conclusion, the decision to have children later in life stems from an evolving set of social and personal
priorities and medical advances. I am convinced that the increased emotional maturity, financial stability, and
dedicated focus that older parents can potentially offer make this trend more of a positive development.

9
Some people say that music plays an important role in society while others believe that it is simply a form
of entertainment for individuals. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Much has been debated over the role of music in society, with some seeing it as a mere source of individual
amusement. while others believe it plays a profound role in shaping society. I am inclined to support the latter
perspective, asserting that music holds a significant place in social structure and influence.
There is no denying the appeal of music as a source of individual entertainment. Many people turn to music as
an escape, a way to detach from the hustle and bustle of daily life. With the rise of personal listening devices,
from the classic Walkman to modern-day smartphones, music has become an intensely personal experience. For
these individuals, music is a companion during commutes, a backdrop for workouts, or a way to unwind at the
day's end. Such a view is supported by the vast and varied genres available, catering to every emotional need,
preference, and mood.
However, to confine music to the realm of personal entertainment would be an oversight. Historically, music
has been a social glue, binding communities with shared melodies and rhythms. For example, national anthems
foster a sense of patriotism and unity among citizens. Religious hymns and chants played pivotal roles in
ceremonies and celebrations, forging a collective identity. Also, music has the power to prompt social change.
The 1960s and 1970s, for instance, witnessed the emergence of rock and roll and its role in the anti-war and
civil rights movements. Artists like Bob Dylan and Joan Baez used their platform to address social issues,
sparking conversations and influencing public opinion. These arguments underscore the fact that music is, time
and again, a potent tool for social commentary, mobilization, and transformation.
In conclusion. while music undeniably serves as a personal source of solace and entertainment for many, its
broader role in shaping social narratives and values cannot be understated. Its ability to unify masses, instill
social values, and even catalyze change underlines its integral place in the fabric of society. It is, thus, not just
an art form but also a powerful social influencer.

Many young people today change their jobs or careers every few years. Do the advantages of this
outweigh the disadvantages?
It is widely recognized that many young individuals switch careers or jobs with a frequency previously unseen
in older generations. From my perspective, the benefits of this trend substantially overshadow its associated
drawbacks.
To begin with, one significant concern regarding this job-hopping trend is the potential lack of depth in one's
expertise. Consistently switching professions can prevent individuals from achieving mastery in a particular
field. This lack of deep specialization might make them less attractive candidates for roles that require profound
expertise. Another potential disadvantage lies in the perception of instability. Frequent career changes might
give potential employers the impression that the candidate is fickle-minded or lacks commitment, thereby
making them hesitant to invest in training or providing opportunities that demand continuity.
However, I am convinced that the aforementioned drawbacks pale in comparison to the advantages of this trend.
Firstly, by exploring various roles, young individuals can identify their true passions and strengths, leading
them to a career where they are genuinely satisfied and more likely to excel. This self-awareness can lead to a
more fulfilled workforce, benefiting both the individual and their eventual long-term employers. For instance,
someone who has worked in both marketing and software development might find their ideal role at the
intersection of these fields, like product management.
From a societal perspective, having a workforce that is versatile can be incredibly beneficial. Such individuals
bring diverse experiences to the table, fostering innovation and promoting a multidisciplinary approach to

10
problem-solving. In an era defined by rapid technological advances and global challenges that require out-of-
the-box thinking, this diversity of experience is indeed invaluable.
In conclusion, while frequently switching careers can have certain setbacks in terms of perceived commitment
and depth of expertise, the broader advantages for both the individual's personal development and society's
innovative potential are undeniable. In an age that champions adaptability and resilience, it might be wiser to
view these frequent career changes as strategic adaptability rather than fickle indecision.

Some people think that employers should not care about the way their employees dress, because what
matters is the quality of their work. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There has been an ongoing debate regarding the relevance of employees' attire in the workplace. Some believe
that the focus should solely be on the quality of an individual's work, rather than their appearance. While
acknowledging the reasons for this thinking, I would argue for the paramount role of workplace attire.
Those in favor of a relaxed dress code contend that an employee's work performance is the true measure of their
professional value. This perspective is particularly relevant in industries where creativity and individual
expression are key, such as in the tech and artistic sectors. For instance, tech giants like Google and Facebook
are known for their casual dress policies, which, they believe, foster a more innovative and comfortable
environment. This approach suggests that when employees are not constrained by formal attire, they are more
likely to think outside the box and contribute unique ideas.
However, I am convinced that workplace attire plays a significant role in several aspects of business operations.
Primarily, it fosters a sense of professionalism and discipline. In customer-facing roles, for example, employees
are often the first point of contact and thus become the face of the company. Their attire can influence customer
perceptions and, by extension, the company's image. A bank employee dressed in a suit and tie, as opposed to
casual wear, may instill more confidence and trust in clients. Additionally, appropriate dress codes can promote
a sense of unity and equality within the workplace, minimizing distractions and potential disparities in personal
presentation.
In conclusion, while the quality of an employee's work is undeniably crucial, this is not synonymous with
disregarding the importance of professional attire. It not only contributes to an individual's professionalism but
also plays a crucial role in shaping the company's image and fostering a cohesive work environment.

Much has been debated over the importance of workplace attire, with some believing that employers should
turn a blind eye to dress codes, focusing instead on work output. While acknowledging the reasons for this
thinking, I would contend that an employee's appearance holds significant weight in the professional realm.
Proponents of relaxed dress norms often emphasize that in today's world, where creativity and individualism are
increasingly championed, enforcing stringent dress codes is regressive. As long as employees discharge their
duties efficiently, they say, their attire is a moot point. This sentiment finds resonance, especially in sectors like
the tech industry, where companies like Google have thrived despite adopting a relaxed dress regulation. For
them, the quality of work, innovation, and tangible outcomes are the yardsticks of an employee's worth, not
their clothing.
However, overlooking the impact of work attire would be a mistake. First, uniform or standardized clothing can
instill a sense of unity and belonging, contributing to a cohesive corporate culture. This benefit can be absent if
staff members are allowed to sport whatever they want. In addition to this, for roles that involve direct client
interaction, employees essentially become the company's representatives. In these situations, their clothing
choices can be seen as a reflection of the company's values and level of professionalism. Imagine a bank where

11
employees dressed haphazardly; despite their competence, customers might question the bank's credibility
based on appearances alone.
To summarize, while the primary measure of an employee is undeniably their performance and output, the
significance of workplace attire in shaping perceptions and fostering a cohesive environment cannot be
overlooked. It is thus crucial to strike a balance between individual expression and the broader objectives of an
organization.

Companies should pay higher salaries to CEOs and executives compared to other workers. To what
extent do you agree or disagree?
Much has been debated over whether CEOs and top executives should earn significantly higher salaries than
other staff members. While some argue that this wage disparity is unjustified, I firmly believe that the unique
responsibilities borne by these executives warrant their elevated remuneration.
A prevalent argument against towering CEO salaries is the perceived injustice in the vast income disparity.
Critics opine that this wage gap exacerbates the problem of social inequalities, as workers on the lower rungs
often struggle with living expenses, whereas CEOs earn many times their salaries. For instance. a cashier at a
multinational supermarket chain might find it challenging to make ends meet, while the CEO of the same
company takes home millions. This stark contrast, they argue, can demoralize employees and be the breeding
ground for resentment.
While the concerns about social inequalities are valid, it is essential to understand the vast differences in
responsibilities and pressures between these roles. CEOs and executives often bear the weight of an entire
organization's success on their shoulders. A single strategic error can lead to massive financial losses or worse,
the downfall of the company. Furthermore, their decisions impact not only the company's stakeholders but also
its employees and sometimes even entire industries.
The argument in favor of higher pay for CEOs and executives is further strengthened by the fact that they often
have a vast reservoir of experience and a proven track record of leadership and decision-making, which is not
easily replaceable. This can be seen in the tech industry, where leaders like Tim Cook or Sundar Pichai not only
possess technical acumen but also show stellar management prowess, enabling companies like Apple and
Google to stay ahead in a fiercely competitive market. Their salaries, therefore, are not merely for their current
roles but as recognition for years of commitment and accomplishments.
In conclusion, while the disparity in pay between CEOs and other workers is striking, it is justified, given the
unparalleled responsibilities and pressures associated with these roles. It is vital to recognize the invaluable
contribution of every worker, but it is equally crucial to compensate individuals based on the magnitude of their
responsibilities and the impact of their decisions.

There are several factors that motivate people to stay in the workforce and money is the most important
factor. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The role of compensation in motivating individuals to remain actively engaged in their professions is a widely
debated topic, with many arguing that financial rewards are the paramount factor keeping people tethered to
their jobs. Although money undeniably plays a significant role in job retention, I maintain that other factors can
be equally, if not more, influential in one's decision to remain in the workforce.
Undoubtedly, a competitive salary can be a strong enticement for many individuals. For one, rising living
expenses, coupled with aspirations for a comfortable lifestyle, necessitate a stable income. Financial security,
after all, allows individuals to meet basic needs such as housing, food, and education for their children.

12
Moreover, in many capitalist societies, wealth is often equated with success, and for those who subscribe to this
notion, a hefty paycheck can be seen as a symbol of personal achievement and social status. This can be seen in
the allure of high-paying roles in the financial sectors of cities like New York or London. Many are drawn to
these roles primarily for their lucrative salaries and the prestige they bring.
However, looking beyond mere monetary gains, there exist myriad reasons that might anchor an individual to
their profession. Job satisfaction, derived from a sense of purpose or passion for the work, is a potent motivator.
For instance, many educators, despite often modest salaries, remain in their roles due to the intrinsic reward of
shaping young minds. Additionally, the social interactions and camaraderie forged in a workplace can be a
compelling reason for many to stay. An environment where colleagues evolve into friends can make even
mundane tasks enjoyable. Furthermore, opportunities for personal growth, skill development, and career
progression can serve as powerful incentives, often independent of monetary rewards.
In conclusion, while financial compensation is undeniably a crucial motivator for many in the workforce, it is
reductive to consider it the most significant factor. The intricate tapestry of motivations ranging from personal
passion and satisfaction to social connections and professional growth- underscores the multifaceted nature of
our ties to our jobs.

When a country develops its technology, the traditional skills and ways of life die out. It is pointless to
keep them alive. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? (Band 8.5 8989)
In an ever-progressing world, technological advancement is undoubtedly a driving force, altering our
conventional ways of life. This has led some to believe that this evolution would completely obliterate
traditional skills and lifestyles, rendering their preservation futile. In this essay, however, I will challenge this
school of thought.
Granted, technological advances are somewhat posing a threat to traditional skills and lifestyles. It is true that
many age-old practices are being supplanted by more efficient, technologically advanced methods. This can be
seen in the diminished demand for handwritten letters due to the instantaneousness of email and text messaging.
By the same token, the interest in manual agriculture has dwindled drastically since the emergence of
technologically enhanced farming methods like precision farming and robotic welding. Considering these
factors, it seems futile to go to great lengths to preserve traditional skills and lifestyles in this day and age.
However, I am convinced that technology can play a role in preserving, promoting, and even enhancing
conventional practices, rather than completely superseding them. This is evidenced by the revival of traditional
textile crafts through online platforms. Digital platforms host instructional videos, sell handcrafted products
globally, and encourage a new generation to learn these age-old techniques. This example is a testament to the
fact that technology can coexist with tradition, instead of annihilating it.
It is also noteworthy that maintaining older skills and lifestyles is nowhere near a futile effort. From a cultural
standpoint, traditional practices form the bedrock of a community's identity and heritage, offering a sense of
belonging and continuity through generations. Economically, they can serve as a vital source of income,
particularly in regions that rely heavily on tourism. Bhutan perfectly exemplifies this point. In this country,
traditional crafts and ways of life have become a unique selling proposition, attracting tourists globally and
bolstering the economy. These arguments underscore the cultural and economic benefits of protecting
traditional skills and lifestyles.
In conclusion, while technology can indeed lead to the marginalization of certain traditional practices, it can
also prove instrumental in their preservation and promotion. Far from being pointless, keeping traditional skills
and ways of life alive is a valuable pursuit that offers cultural enrichment and economic benefits.

13
Some people think that men and women have different qualities. Therefore, some certain jobs are
suitable for men and some jobs are suitable for women. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
(Band 8.5 8999) It is often argued that men and women possess distinct qualities that make them suited for
specific occupations. In this essay, however, I will challenge this thinking.
Proponents of the idea of job suitability based on gender might argue that biological differences between men
and women lead to distinct strengths and weaknesses. Men, they say, have greater physical strength and are
therefore more suited for physically demanding jobs, such as construction or firefighting. Women, in contrast,
are perceived as more nurturing and empathetic, which supposedly makes them better candidates for roles in
caregiving, teaching, or nursing. However, this view is a sweeping generalization, as clearly seen in the fact that
not all females are physically inferior to males and that there are numerous men who exhibit exceptional
empathetic and caregiving skills.
Moreover, I would emphasize that perpetuating the idea that certain jobs are suitable for men and others for
women risks reinforcing toxic stereotypes and limiting the potential of individuals to pursue their passions and
excel in their chosen fields. In reality, countless examples demonstrate that men and women can be equally
successful in any profession, regardless of traditional gender norms. One prime example of this is Ginni
Rometty, who was the CEO of IBM, a tech giant. Under her leadership, the company made significant strides,
and she proved that women are perfectly capable of excelling in tech leadership roles that have traditionally
been dominated by males. By the same token, prominent male makeup artists like Hung Vango have shown us
how wrong it is to assume that only women can thrive in the realm of beauty.
In conclusion, while there are justifications that certain jobs are inherently suitable for men or women, I would
contend that these reasons are shallow, given the wide range of individual abilities that can transcend gender
stereotypes. To support a more inclusive and diverse workforce, it is essential to challenge traditional gender
roles and incentivize individuals to pursue careers that align with their interests and abilities, rather than making
assumptions based on gender.

Some people believe that certain jobs should be done exclusively by men, and others are only suitable for their
female counterparts, due to physical and genetic differences between genders. However, I personally disagree
with this school of thought since individual differences are greater than gender ones.
One might argue that women tend to be more caring than men, and therefore "caring professions" such as
nursing teaching, or social work suit them more. This argument is reinforced by the fact that women have
traditionally worked in the home in most cultures and dominated these jobs. Similarly, men, who are thought to
be stronger and more intelligent, have always worked outside the home and been in charge of bringing home the
bacon.
However, this line of reasoning is not sound as with sufficient training, countless men are successfully taking
the role of a household husband, teaching in classrooms, or taking care of patients in hospital rooms. By the
very same token, with high levels of education, even the highest positions in the world of science, politics, or
law are successfully held by women. Thus, the stereotypical view of what jobs should be done by either gender
should not be supported.
In conclusion, it is my genuine belief that both men and women can be trained to develop similar abilities and
do similar jobs. I take this view on account of the fact that the differences in aptitude and talent between
genders are more significant at the individual level than gender one.

14
In some countries, more and more people are becoming interested in finding out about the history of the
house or building they live in. What are the reasons for this? How can people research this? (Band 9)
There is an increasing trend towards people seeking to uncover the history of their homes or buildings. This
essay will first outline the underlying causes of this curiosity, before giving some methods that people can
employ to conduct such research.
To begin with, the growing interest in discovering the past of one's residence or building can be attributed to
two main reasons. One of these is the desire to establish a deeper connection with the past. By understanding
the historical context and the lives of previous occupants, individuals can gain a sense of belonging and
continuity, fostering a stronger emotional attachment to their living spaces. Another reason can be the potential
for financial gain. Unearthing valuable information about a property, such as architectural significance or
noteworthy previous inhabitants, can increase its market value and appeal to potential buyers, particularly in the
case of heritage properties.
For those seeking to delve into the history of their dwelling, there are several ways to conduct research. The
first approach involves consulting local archives, such as city or county records, which may contain information
on the property's construction date, original owner, and any major alterations or events that took place there.
These documents can provide a wealth of information on the property's past. In addition to this, people can also
explore oral history by speaking with long-time residents of the area or previous occupants of the building.
These individuals can provide firsthand accounts and anecdotes, possibly offering invaluable insights into the
property's history.
To summarize, the increasing desire to understand the history of one's home or building stems from the desire
for emotional connection and potential financial gain. By utilizing resources such as local archives and oral
history, individuals can uncover the past of their living spaces.

An increasing number of people are choosing to have cosmetic surgery in order to improve their
appearance. Why is this the case? Is it a positive or negative development? (Band 9)
The prevalence of cosmetic surgery has surged in recent years, with many individuals opting for procedures to
enhance their appearance. This essay will first outline the underlying causes of this trend, before arguing that it
is more of a negative development.
The primary motivation for individuals seeking cosmetic surgery is often rooted in a desire to conform to social
beauty standards. The pervasive influence of mass media and technology has amplified the focus on physical
appearance, making many people feel pressure to conform to beauty ideals and resort to surgical intervention to
achieve their desired look. For example, the widespread use of photo-editing applications and the proliferation
of "picture-perfect" images on social media platforms have led many to seek cosmetic procedures to attain a
similar level of perceived perfection. This is further compounded by advances in medical technology, which
have made cosmetic surgery more accessible and affordable, further fueling the increase in such procedures.
Notwithstanding the potential benefits of improved self-confidence and satisfaction with one's appearance, I
believe that the growing trend of cosmetic surgery is predominantly detrimental. One major problem is that it
can lead to an excessive focus on external beauty or, in other words, foster a culture of superficiality, where
individuals are judged primarily on their physical appearance rather than their character or abilities. This could
lead to a decline in self-worth for those who may not fit into the narrow definitions of beauty propagated by
society. Worse still, the pursuit of physical perfection can become an obsession for some individuals, leading to
multiple procedures and a vicious cycle of dissatisfaction with their appearance.

15
In conclusion, the rise in cosmetic surgery can be attributed to the pressure to conform to social beauty
standards and the increased accessibility of these procedures. From my perspective, the promotion of superficial
values, coupled with the potential psychological risks, makes this development largely negative.

Some people think that artists should have total freedom to express their thoughts and ideas. To what
extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? (Band 9)
It is often proposed that artists should be allowed to express what they feel and believe without any fear of
censorship or persecution. While acknowledging the reasons for this thinking, I believe certain regulations on
the freedom of artistic expression are still necessary.
Granted, there are certain benefits of granting artists complete freedom to express their feelings and beliefs.
Proponents might argue freedom of expression is the foundation of human rights, the root of human nature, and
the mother of truth. According to this belief, there should not be any limitations on the way artists voice their
opinions of issues, ranging from personal experiences and emotions to socioeconomic and political matters.
Aside from this, by letting artists freely express themselves, not only would it help unleash their creative
potential, but it could also incentivize the culture of experimentation and risk-taking, which is true of
importance to innovation and social progress.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned arguments, I am convinced that some restriction on artistic freedom is still
needed. Perhaps the foremost reason would be that freedom of expression does not equate to the right to offend
or harm others. In other words, artistic expression that promotes hate speech, violence, or discrimination against
a certain group of people should never be championed. For example, the artwork of the Italian artist Max
Papeschi that depicted Holocaust victims as superheroes caused widespread outrage, with many saying that it
showed disrespect to the people involved. His work, as a consequence, was cut out from many exhibitions.
In conclusion, although artistic freedom is indeed important, I would contend that it should not come at the cost
of causing harm or offense to others. For this reason, some limitations on the expression of artists are warranted
to ensure that the arts serve their purpose of enriching society, instead of dividing it.

More and more people today are drinking sugar-based drinks. What are the reasons for this? What are
the solutions?
There has been a surge in the consumption of sugary drinks worldwide. This state of affairs can be attributed to
several factors and some viable solutions that can be adopted to alleviate the situation will be outlined in this
essay.
There are two main contributors to the over-consumption of sugary drinks. Chief of these is that since artificial
additives are often added to these drinks to make them tastier, this causes consumers to develop dependency on
these kinds of drinks, driving up consumption. This can be seen in the overwhelming number of additives listed
on a can of Coca-Cola. Added to this is the fact that unregulated ad campaigns from Pepsi and Coca-Cola have
led to a pandemic of sugary drinks in most countries in the world, especially in the developing world. We see
this in how many adverts for Coca-Cola pop up on a YouTube video or a TV program and how many celebrities
endorse this product.
The problem of excessive consumption of sugary beverages can be addressed in a number of ways. An
immediate remedy is to bring it to the fore, which can take the form of adverts in print or social media.
Celebrities who are trusted by the public can also help spread the message about the dangers and repercussions
of consuming sugar-based drinks excessively. Furthermore, a long-term solution is to educate schoolchildren
about what health risks are associated with sugar-heavy drinks, for example in the form of cancer, diabetes, and

16
obesity, and what alternatives are available to them. This can be done by inviting healthcare experts to talk to
these young people, as seen in many schools in the US and Sweden.
In conclusion, the causes of the overconsumption of sugar-based drinks are the addition of artificial substances
and flavors to these drinks and the solutions would lie in awareness-raising campaigns, the participation of
high-profile public figures, and education.

Scientists generally agree that the consumption of junk food is detrimental to health. Some people believe
that the answer to this problem is education. Others disagree, saying that it will not work. Discuss both
views and give your opinion.
While there is an opinion that educating the public about the harm of junk food can address this problem, other
people think differently, saying that such a measure would not yield results. Personally, I agree with the latter
assertion for several reasons.
Granted, one might argue that education is efficacious in curbing the consumption of junk food. This is
predicated on the assumption that fast food eaters are simply not aware of the health risks associated with their
dietary choices. According to this theory, if they are better informed about how susceptible they are to diet-
related problems such as obesity and cardiovascular diseases, they may avoid eating fast food altogether.
However, this line of reasoning is not sound as many simply do not have a choice but to eat fast food due to
their financial hardship. Even if they are well aware of the dangers involved in their food choices, they cannot
afford more salubrious foods, which generally cost significantly more than a meal at McDonald's or KFC.
Other reasons to question the efficacy of education are related to people's fast-paced lifestyles and the
bombardment of advertisements for unhealthy food. Most working people, even those in the field of healthcare
themselves, find it increasingly difficult to spare some time to cook a meal for themselves and their families due
to their hectic schedules. As a result, they have to resort to readily-made meals or processed food, while their
children are left to eat at will. These youngsters' obvious choice is fast food because of its tastiness and
convenience. Furthermore, the impact of awareness-raising campaigns to persuade people to change their eating
habits would pale in comparison with that of the overwhelming number of adverts for junk food. Were
education to be efficacious, an unimaginable sum of money would be required to offset the impact of
advertising for this kind of food.
In conclusion, placing education at the core of measures to deal with the high consumption of junk food is an
unwise course of action due to financial and lifestyle-related factors and the ubiquity of advertising for such
food.

People can eat a wide variety of food that can be grown in other areas. As a result, people eat more food
produced in other regions than local food. Do you think the advantages of this trend outweigh the
disadvantages?
The possibility of eating food produced from other agrarian regions has led to a decrease in local food
consumption. Although the short-term benefits of this trend are clear, they are outweighed by its long-term
disadvantages.
Admittedly, the benefits of the shift in consumers' preferences towards food produced in other areas are indeed
in plain sight. Chief of these is that since even fresh produce can be kept edible for weeks thanks to modern
refrigeration technologies, consumers now enjoy a much wider range of food options than before. This may lead
to an increase in the overall quality of life. Added to this is the fact that food companies are finding it much

17
easier to expand their businesses to potential markets where their products are in demand. This can be seen in
the way global food brands are now accessible to customers even in developing countries like Vietnam.
However, the long-term ramifications for the environment of people eating more food from other regions than
locally produced food are more significant. The key problem is that in order to deliver and refrigerate food, a
large number of natural resources, such as petrol, gas, and coal are required. This invariably accelerates the
depletion of natural resources, which is often accompanied by the disappearance of natural habitats due to the
exploration and extraction of those energy sources. Related to this is the fact that long-haul flights also emit a
significant amount of carbon dioxide, which is the primary cause of global warming. This means that if this
trend continues, it will exacerbate the problem of global warming, posing existential threats to all lives on Earth.
In conclusion, while acknowledging the benefits for consumers and businesses of the trend towards consuming
more food produced in other regions, I believe that the repercussions for the environment of this development
are very undesirable and therefore could negate any possible benefits.

Many people decide on a career path early in their lives and keep to it. This, they argue, leads to a more
satisfying working life. To what extent do you agree with this view? What other things can people do in
order to have a satisfying working life?
There is an opinion that those who have a clear picture of what they wish to do early on and keep doing it often
have a more fulfilling career than those who often hop from one job to another. Personally, I agree with this
school of thought for several reasons.
There are good reasons to say that choosing a career path early on and doing it for a long time can lead to a
fulfilling working life. Chief of these is that staying in a job for a long time allows people to gain in-depth
knowledge and position in their field. This can help them gain high levels of respect, influence, and possibly
wealth. Furthermore, job-hoppers are presented with lots of difficulties, such as working in a completely
different work environment, receiving low pay rates, and having to learn a new skill set for a new job. Thus, a
career life that is full of uncertainty, challenges, and financial hardships can hardly be considered desirable.
There are several strategies that enable people to lead a more satisfying working life. Firstly, they should try to
find a working environment that provides them with opportunities to widen their social circle, work with
inspiring colleagues, and accumulate knowledge and experience. These factors contribute to their satisfaction at
work. Secondly, people need to learn to achieve a healthy balance between their professional and personal lives
so that they can avoid letting their personal matters interfere with their work. In fact, rarely do we see anyone
who is too occupied with family problems feel truly fulfilled at work.
In conclusion, one should think long and hard before deciding to change his job as staying in a job that is
chosen early in life is very fruitful and indeed more satisfying. People should also choose a suitable working
environment and maintain a good work/life balance to achieve a satisfying working life.

As people spend a major part of their adult life at their place of work, job satisfaction is an important
part of individual well-being. What are the factors that contribute to job satisfaction? Are all the
expectations for job satisfaction realistic?
It is true that people now spend a large chunk of their lives working, and therefore job satisfaction is becoming
more important for each and every individual than ever. I believe that both intrinsic and extrinsic factors
contribute to job satisfaction and argue that most jobs often fail to meet the expectations of job holders.
From my vantage point, most of the factors that influence one's levels of job satisfaction are extrinsic. The most
important is perhaps material needs, such as income, housing, paid holiday or bonus, to name but a few. These

18
are the main elements that an employee will normally look into when evaluating whether a job is desirable or
not. In addition, people often crave a positive self-image and to have their contribution valued and appreciated.
Also, some other important factors are intrinsic. For example, employees who are optimistic and have a positive
outlook on life are more likely to achieve higher job satisfaction irrespective of the job or the workplace they
are in. This is because optimism allows individuals to function well under pressure, while pessimism leads
people to worry about unreasonable things and feelings, causing them to waste time and derive much less
satisfaction from their work.
One may argue that rewards can address the extrinsic factors mentioned above; however, not everyone can
receive such privileges since only those with the best performance are rewarded. This excludes a large part of
workers from getting the said external motivation. As well as this, people are intrinsically different, and
therefore, it is impractical to expect everyone to be optimistic to obtain more satisfaction at work.
In conclusion, most jobs cannot live up to workers' expectations due to several inner and external factors that
contribute largely to their levels of job satisfaction.

Some people think that a job provides not only an income but also a social life. Other people think that it
is better to develop a social life with people you do not work with. Discuss both these views and give your
own opinion.
While some think that everyone should socialize with colleagues, some disapprove of this. I personally believe
that there are benefits of spending time together outside of working hours.
There are good reasons to argue against mixing one's work and social life. Chief of these is that the relationship
between managers and staff might become difficult to manage. For example, I had a good rapport with a former
manager and we frequently met up after work; however, when there was an issue at work, he found it difficult
to deal with because of our close friendship. In addition, when one gets together with his colleagues, the
conversations usually revolve around work and seem to be extended work-related meetings rather than casual
ones between friends. This might not be good for one's mental health as he needs to switch off from work and
enjoy life outside of the office.
However, there are stronger reasons to argue that spending time with fellow employees can be advantageous.
The first benefit is that teamwork can improve, as there is good communication between staff members and we
tend to co-operate better with people we get on well with. This is precisely the reason why many companies
organize small parties at work or short trips for their employees to spend time together. Furthermore, in
contemporary society, it is particularly difficult to make friends and remain in touch with them, as everyone is
leading such busy lives. Therefore, making friends with coworkers could prevent loneliness and enable them to
have a more satisfying social life.
In conclusion, there are certainly risks involved with socializing with fellow workers; however, I feel that if
everyone acts professionally whilst in the workplace, and has enjoyable interactions outside of it, there should
not be an issue.

People say that international news is more important than local news. Others claim that local news is
more important. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
While there is an opinion that readers of news should pay more attention to news about foreign affairs rather
than local ones, other people think differently, saying that domestic news plays a more essential role.
Personally, I agree with the latter viewpoint for several reasons.

19
Granted, one might argue that news about global events is more important than local news. This is predicated on
the assumption that with our world becoming increasingly more globalized, what happens in a country may
reverberate through to others. Knowing about what is going on outside of one's country may serve as a buffer
against negative changes and engender opportunities. For example, those who read about how contagious
COVID-19 is could capitalize on it by producing face masks or at least rigorously obeying the stay-at-home
order issued in their residence. Without reading about international happenings, one might underestimate certain
dangers posed from overseas and miss certain opportunities.
However, this line of reasoning is not sound because domestic affairs are much more likely to have direct
impacts on people's lives. Due to cultural and political differences, an arguably catastrophic event in a country
may baffle a person in another and serve as nothing short of entertainment. To illustrate, while many Americans
reject wearing face masks and risk their lives and the lives of others amidst the coronavirus pandemic on the
basis of their constitutional rights, inhabitants in many Asian countries have been using this item for protective
and fashionable reasons for decades. As such, knowing how counterintuitively people in a foreign country are
acting is not as important as knowing what to do to avoid being infected and spreading the virus in their own
area.
In conclusion, reading news about what is going on in the global community is certainly helpful, but reading
news about problems and events taking place in local communities is more beneficial.

Many people prefer to watch foreign films rather than locally produced films. Why could this be? Should
governments give more financial support to local film industries?
It is true that foreign films are more popular in many countries than domestically produced films. There could
be several reasons why this is the case, and I believe that governments should promote local film-making by
subsidizing the industry.
There are various reasons why many people find foreign films more enjoyable than films produced in their own
countries. Firstly, the established film industries in certain countries have huge budgets for action, special
effects, and shooting scenes in spectacular locations. Hollywood blockbusters like 'Avatar' or the James Bond
films are examples of such productions, and their global appeal is undeniable. Another reason why these big-
budget films are so successful is that they often star the most famous actors and actresses, and they are made by
the most accomplished producers and directors. The poor quality, low-budget filmmaking in many countries
suffers in comparison.
In my view, governments should support local film industries financially. In every country, there may be
talented amateur filmmakers who just need to be given the opportunity to prove themselves. To compete with
big-budget productions from overseas, these people need money to pay for film crews, actors, and a host of
other costs related to producing high-quality films. If governments did help with these costs, they would see an
increase in employment in the film industry, income from film sales, and perhaps even a rise in tourist numbers.
New Zealand, for example, has seen an increase in tourism related to the 'Lord of the Rings' films, which were
partly funded by government subsidies.
In conclusion, I believe that increased financial support could help to raise the quality of locally made films and
allow them to compete with the foreign productions that currently dominate the market.

Many people believe that film is a less important art than other forms such as literature and painting. To
what extent do you agree or disagree?

20
The film is often looked down on as a less important art form in comparison with more elevated mediums like
painting and literature. In my opinion, though the blatant commercialization of film often undermines its claim
to be art at all, it is a clearly more important art form for the 21st century.
Those who would minimize the importance of film can point out that its primary purpose is to make money.
This has become increasingly true in the last several decades as studios have assumed greater power. It used to
be common for auteurs like Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, and Robert Altman to make modestly
budgeted films that earned decent returns. The advent of blockbuster films generally and superhero movies in
particular makes it much harder for studios catering to their shareholders to justify anything other than tentpole
franchises. The artistic merits of these big movies tend to be low as they are often made by committees and
strive only for escapism and fan service.
However, film has clearly overtaken other forms of art in the popular imagination. Hundreds of years ago,
composers, playwrights, novelists, and painters were held in higher esteem and their works were the center of
popular culture. Music and film have now displaced them. Someone who would have become a great writer in
the 19th century would now opt to make films as they can reach the greatest number of people and the medium
is newer and more open to possibility. A good example of this would be a young filmmaker like P. T. Anderson
who creates thoughtful, explorative works that also have a degree of mass appeal.
In conclusion, film as an art form is ascendant today. It is, however, still important for audiences to tune in to a
wide breadth of genres in order to encourage the film industry to remain vibrant and innovative.

Music is played in every society and culture in the world today. Some people think that music brings only
benefits to individuals and societies. Others, however, think that music can have a negative influence on
both. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Generally, music is considered to be one of the most popular and ancient modes of human expression. While
some people believe that music can only be seen as beneficial to both individuals and societies, others believe
that it can negatively affect both. I personally think that music can have both positive and negative impacts on
people and society.
On the one hand, music features largely in all histories and all cultures and indeed has been one of the main
ways of passing on cultural traditions to new generations. Because of this, many people view music as a
positive influence on society. They also believe that the influence on individuals is wholly beneficial as it is a
long-established way of communicating and helping us to understand the whole range of human emotion and
experience in a more spiritual language than words can represent.
However, there are different kinds of music and the qualities of classical music traditions are not necessarily
part of the music many people experience today. In the modern world, there is a huge music industry that sells
piped music to supermarkets and advertisers. We see this in the way many songwriters now compose songs that
carry no meaning in their lyrics but appeal to the public taste. We are also constantly exposed to loud, modern
music from people's phones and car radios. Thus, the view of music today as a kind of noise pollution produced
by selfish people is also a common and negative one.
In conclusion, music can impact people and society in both positive and negative ways, but it is difficult to
think of a world without music. Certainly, there is bad music that may have negative influences, particularly on
the young, but people's taste in music tends to change as they get older, and it would be difficult to find
someone who has no positive musical associations at all.

21
There are many different types of music in the world today. Why do we need music? Is the traditional
music of a country more important than the international music that is heard everywhere nowadays?
It is true that a rich variety of musical styles can be found around the world, and that music can be regarded as a
universal language. Music is a vital part of all human cultures for a range of reasons, and I would argue that
traditional music is more important than modern, international music.
Music is something that accompanies all of us throughout our lives and helps us connect, entertain, and express
our feelings. As children, we are taught songs by our parents and teachers as a means of learning language, or
simply as a form of enjoyment. The latter can be seen in the way children delight in singing with others. Added
to this is the fact that the act of singing in a group creates a connection between participants, regardless of their
age. Later in life, we tend to listen to songs whose lyrics resonate with our feelings and life stories. Music both
expresses and arouses emotions in a way that words alone cannot.
In my opinion, traditional music should be valued over the international music that has become so popular.
International pop music is often catchy and fun, but it is essentially a commercial product that is marketed and
sold by business people. Traditional music, by contrast, expresses the culture, customs, and history of a country.
Traditional styles, such as Cai Luong, connect us to the past and form part of our cultural identity. It would be a
real pity if pop music became so predominant that these national styles became unheard of or disappeared.
In conclusion, music is a necessary part of human existence because it allows us to have fun, build connections,
and communicate our feelings and thoughts, and I believe that traditional music should be given more
importance than international music.

Many museums and historical sites are mainly visited by tourists but not local people. Why is this the
case? What can be done to attract local people to visit these places?
Museums and historical sites often become the domain of tourists rather than the local residents who live in
their shadow. This essay will first outline the underlying causes of this phenomenon, before showing how to
encourage local attendance.
Primarily, the allure of the familiar diminishes for locals. For tourists, museums and historical sites offer a novel
glimpse into the history and culture of a new place. In contrast, local residents, habituated to their presence,
often overlook these treasures, perceiving them as mundane fixtures rather than places of interest. This disparity
is akin to how residents of a scenic mountain town may overlook the natural beauty around them, a
phenomenon tourists find captivating. Additionally, museums and historical sites often gear their narratives and
exhibits towards tourists, focusing on a generalized, sometimes superficial portrayal of history and culture
which may fail to resonate with locals who seek a deeper, more nuanced connection with their heritage.
To reverse this trend, a multifaceted approach is required. Museums and historical sites should tailor some
experiences specifically for locals. This could involve exhibits that delve into less-known local history or
interactive sessions that involve community members in curating their narratives. Of course, one might argue
that these initiatives might face financial constraints, as they might not generate as much revenue as tourist-
centric programs. This, however, is far from insoluble. Partnerships with local educational institutions and
businesses could provide financial support and a steady stream of local visitors.
In conclusion, while tourists often flock to museums and historical sites seeking cultural enrichment, locals may
overlook these resources due to familiarity and a lack of tailored engagement. By creating experiences that
resonate more deeply with local communities and finding sustainable financial models to support these
initiatives, these sites can become vibrant centers of learning and pride for both tourists and locals alike.

22
It is true that museums and historical attractions have largely been ignored by locals. This can be attributed to a
host of reasons, and some viable solutions that can be adopted to remedy the situation will be outlined in this
essay.
Two main factors are to blame for people not wanting to visit museums in their local areas. Firstly, more often
than not we grew up with folklore and stories told by our parents about historical events that took place in our
villages. As a result, we might think we already know about things in our local museums and therefore have
much less of a need to visit these places. Secondly, history is generally considered tedious, and thus things
associated with history like museums often fail to attract people's attention, save for tourists who are curious
about an alien culture.
To address the problem of people having preconceived ideas about their history and local attractions, the key
solution is to revamp history education. For example, graphics, games, and prizes should be incorporated into
history lessons to make them more vivid and competitive, which could arouse students' interest in this subject.
As well as this, teachers should organize field trips to local museums and attractions, and students should be
asked to write a report or give a speech about a certain piece of artifact or history of their local area.
In conclusion, the low rate of local visitors to museums and historical attractions can be ascribed to a false sense
of familiarity with local historical events and the relatedness to the boring nature of history education, and the
solutions would lie in making history lessons more interesting and competitive.

Some museums charge for admission while others are free. Do you think the advantages of charging
people for admission to museums outweigh the disadvantages?
'A country's museums should always be free for people to visit, whatever the visitor's age, income or
nationality.' To what level do you agree with this idea? Should museums always be free for all visitors?
Some people believe that museums should be made universally free, regardless of the visitor's age, income, or
nationality. In this essay, however, I will challenge this school of thought because such a pricing scheme is
unnecessary and even counter-productive.
Firstly, we need to factor in how little an admission to a certain museum actually costs. In my view, most
tourists have already paid large sums to travel, and therefore a modest entry charge would not be an
inconvenience. Furthermore, applying a small fee would enable museums to collect revenue which could be
used to conserve the exhibits, extend the collections put on further displays, and so on. This would in turn make
the institution more attractive so that more visitors arrive.
To add further credence to my assertion, I note that getting rid of entrance fees to museums could potentially do
more harm than good. Abolishing such fees would be vastly expensive because all institutions would rely on
state subsidies to keep them going, and this would surely have little impact on visitor numbers while adding
unnecessary pressure on the state budget. Granted, one might argue that universally free museums help
showcase national heritage and therefore would be a worthwhile effort. However, the use of affordable entry
fees, certainly with exemptions for children, the unemployed, students, and others, would be equally effective
but would not pose the above-mentioned financial challenge.
In conclusion, it is a mistake to assume that governments should provide free access to museums for everyone. I
take this view on account of the fact that it is unnecessary to do so and modest charges are justifiable, and
useful.

It is a natural process for animal species to become extinct. There is no reason why people should try to
prevent this from happening. Do you agree or disagree?

23
The natural history of Earth has seen the extinction of numerous animal species over time. This has led some to
argue that we should cease efforts to protect endangered species and allow nature to run its course. However, I
contend that this view is shortsighted and neglects the critical role humans play in the current rate of species
extinction.
Firstly, the argument that extinction is a natural process and should be left alone fails to acknowledge the
significant impact of human activity on accelerating this process. Habitat destruction, pollution,
overexploitation, and climate change, largely driven by human actions, have drastically increased the rate of
species loss. For example, deforestation for agricultural and urban development has decimated the habitats of
numerous species, such as the Bornean orangutan, pushing them towards extinction. This situation necessitates
an acknowledgment of the human contribution to these extinctions and a commitment to rectify our harmful
practices.
Beyond ethical considerations, preserving animal species has practical implications for human survival. The
interdependence between wildlife and humans means that the loss of a single species can disrupt entire
ecosystems, affecting human wellbeing. Take, for instance, the Australian blue-banded bee, a key pollinator for
many crops. Its extinction would not only harm the natural environment but also jeopardize agricultural
productivity, potentially leading to food shortages. Additionally, biodiversity loss can impact human health, as
numerous medicines are derived from plants and animals, some of which are endangered. Therefore, protecting
endangered species is not just a moral duty but a necessity for the sustainability of our planet and the well-being
of human societies.
In conclusion, while extinction is a natural phenomenon, the current accelerated rate of species loss is
significantly influenced by human activities. It is both a moral obligation and a practical necessity for humans to
actively engage in conserving endangered species. Doing so helps preserve the balance of ecosystems and
ensures a sustainable future for both wildlife and human generations to come.

Many people point to natural selection where the extinction of certain animals is unavoidable as the reason why
trying to prevent this from happening is largely pointless. In this essay, however, I will challenge this school of
thought.
Firstly, allowing animals to go extinct is tantamount to paving the way for our own extinction. This is because
the interconnected nature of the ecosystem, which governs and affects all lives on Earth, could easily be
disrupted by the disappearance of certain keystone animals. Take, for example, Australian bees, which pollinate
a wide variety of flora in this country. Recently, these insects have disappeared in the North of Australia due to
unregulated harmful farming activities, leading to a large number of other plants and animals disappearing
along with them. Farmers in these places can no longer grow crops because of sudden climatic changes caused
by this unfortunate incident. Were we to turn a blind eye to such events, we would soon face the demise of our
own race.
To add further credence to my assertion, I note the cost-effectiveness of protecting wildlife. In my view, If some
keystone animals, such as bees, died out, causing mass extinctions, and threatening our very own existence, the
amount of money and manpower needed to address the resulting changes to our own habitat would far outweigh
the amount spent on animal protection. To make matters worse, there is no guarantee that we would be able to
develop our technologies to cope with such dramatic changes since no existing technologies are making any
discernible contributions to the battle against climate change, let alone the looming end of our own kind.

24
In conclusion, it is a mistake to assume that there is no point in trying to save wild animals from dying out. I
take this view on account of the fact that preserving other animals is a cost-effective measure that could give us
a fighting chance to ensure the very existence of mankind.

Some people believe that zoos where animals are kept in a man-made environment should no longer exist
in the 21st century. Do you agree or disagree?
Many people argue that zoos where wildlife creatures are contained in artificial enclosures should be banned. I
personally think that zoos are useful only when they are used for conservation and that using them for
entertainment is simply inhumane and should be prohibited.
People opposed to zoos highlight the unnatural way in which animals live in such places. For example, captive
animals do not need to hunt or raise offspring, and this means that they are not living as nature intended.
Furthermore, the anti-zoo lobby points out that animals probably suffer mentally when kept in captivity, even if
their surroundings are spacious and similar to their natural habitat. Symptoms of mental issues range from
repetitive behavior to eating disorders, and these are often seen in captive animals. Lastly, it is often said that
zoos add little to animal conservation, which is better served by preserving their habitat.
Conversely, those who support zoos say that in most cases they offer a secure and peaceful setting for animals,
for example in high-quality wildlife parks or reserves. They add that in many cases, the animals would suffer
from loss of habitat or poaching in the wild, and in captivity, they are at least safe and able to breed
successfully. Finally, zoo enthusiasts feel that zoos and animal parks are part of an integrated system of
protecting animals, involving habitat protection, breeding programs, and disease control. This all helps to
safeguard endangered species and thus preserve the global ecosystem for the future benefit of all life forms.
In conclusion, while I accept the use of animal parks for the conservation of endangered species, keeping
animals in captivity for entertainment is wrong and should not be allowed.

The practice of illegally hunting wild animals continues to cause concern in many countries, particularly
developing countries. What are the causes of such hunting? What are the effects on the animals, and on
the wider human society in these countries and beyond?
It is true that poaching is a rampant phenomenon, pushing endangered animals further to the verge of extinction.
Several reasons can be adduced to explain why this practice is still prevalent, especially in developing countries,
and it is to the detriment of both animals and the community.
What seems to be at the core of poaching is related to profit and hunger. With regard to the former, the high
prices attached to illegal ivory, furs, and hides, which are highly sought after by a small but wealthy group of
unscrupulous global collectors who either seek the rarity value or believe in imaginary medicinal properties of
these items, appear to be the primary motive. Added to this is the more basic pressure of hunting for food,
which forces some local people to kill animals purely for meat. The roots of this tend to be in localized famine
or drought, or in political instability which disrupts the food supply, as we see in central Africa currently.
Poaching brings in its wake various effects, the most serious of which is the threat of extinction posed to species
that are already rare or endangered because of habitat loss or other environmental factors. The resulting
consequences of extinction may include damage to the food chain and the ecosphere, in addition to the loss of a
precious form of life. A further effect is the further erosion of a country's natural heritage, which comprises its
animals, landscape, and natural resources, all of which may be under pressure already.
In conclusion, the factors behind poaching tend to be commercial or connected to regional instability. The
effects may include final extinction, with the damage to ecosystems and loss of heritage that this involves.

25
Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology can replace their functions.
Do you agree or disagree?
Although public libraries are still widely used to store books and provide the public with a place where they can
read, some people believe that it is a waste of money to maintain those physical libraries given the easy
accessibility of online books. However, in this essay, I will challenge this school of thought.
Firstly, we need to factor in the unique vibe that public libraries give off. Take, for example, a Saturday
morning in a public library packed with avid readers who, while immersing themselves in their books of choice,
also seek the smell and the texture of paper when they flip the pages. Undoubtedly, it would be impossible to
convince these people to stay at home on such a day and read on their phones or tablets. In other words, most
people come to libraries to read not only because of the books available there but also because of the special
experience they receive. In this respect, it is a mistake to assume that technologies could replace libraries'
functions.
To add further credence to my assertion, I note the unaffordability of modern gadgets such as computers,
tablets, or mobile phones to a large section of people. In fact, since a sizable number of families around the
world are still living on two or even one meal a day, it is simply impossible for them to spend several hundred
dollars purchasing a piece of technology in order to read books. Besides this, they also need to pay a certain
amount for the books that they wish to read in online libraries. It is clear that if public libraries were not funded
and disappeared as a result, countless people who rely primarily on those places to enrich their minds would be
woefully excluded from the pursuit of knowledge.
In conclusion, for the reasons outlined above, it stands to reason that paying for the maintenance of physical
libraries is far from wasteful.

Some people believe that reading stories from a book is better than watching TV or playing computer
games for children. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There is now a wide range of entertainment choices available to children, such as reading, watching TV, and
gaming. This has raised the question of which option is superior to others, with some arguing that reading books
is more beneficial than the other two choices. I believe that each means of relaxation, mentioned above, has its
own benefits, so one is not necessarily better than the others.
On the one hand, books are great for children in terms of the development of vocabulary and imagination. With
regard to the former, reading has been scientifically proven to be the optimal way to enrich one's vocabulary,
which confers further benefits for children at school and in later life. For example, those with a wide range of
lexical resources tend to do well at school as they have superior reading and writing skills and they are
generally more persuasive, which is a crucial skill to be successful in life. As for imagination, children have to
conjure up images of what they read, which is a good exercise to enhance their creative thinking skills. Many
creative people, in fact, have attributed their superior creativity to the amount of reading they did when they
were younger.
Since most TV programs are both fun and educational, watching TV can teach children a wide range of
knowledge while playing computer games can help children learn decision-making skills. Regarding watching
TV, not all children are interested in books, but the captivating nature of TV channels almost never fails to
attract and teach them something new. For example, by watching a program dedicated to wildlife and nature,
young people learn about the ecosystem that intricately governs all lives on Earth and the dangers posed to
humankind when some keystone animals die out. Also, in order to win against an opponent, a player has to

26
think of strategies and decisively come up with a course of action. Thus, children can learn to make decisions
and think critically based on the information at hand, both of which are important skills for adult life.
In conclusion, reading books, watching TV, and playing computer games benefit children differently, so it is
unreasonable to reach a conclusion with regard to which medium is more advantageous for children.

It is not necessary to travel to other places to learn about other cultures. We can learn from books, films,
and the Internet. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There is now a wide range of approaches for people to learn about a foreign culture. This has led some to argue
that people no longer need to travel to other areas to learn about the people and the culture there because they
can easily learn from books, films, and the internet. I believe that experiencing the culture first-hand is still a
superior option.
Admittedly, there are good reasons to say that it is unnecessary to travel to other places to learn about the
traditions, customs, and ways of life there. Other means of knowledge, such as books, films, and websites
dedicated to travel can teach people a great deal of knowledge about a certain place. For example, by reading on
[Link], I learned about different etiquettes in different countries and what to do to avoid potential
conflicts when traveling to other places. Moreover, many travel writers have depicted their trips with incredible
details and let readers live through their experiences. A good example is "How I Travel to 40 Countries with no
Money”, in which the writer vividly describes what it is like to ask for help in different countries and what
obstacles he has overcome. After reading it, it is possible to understand more about the cultures of the countries
contained in the book without actually having to travel to those places.
However, the fundamental reason why people travel is to gain first-hand experiences and judge for themselves.
Many travel writers only give a subjective description of the culture of a certain place and this can potentially
be faulty and misleading. In fact, a famous food reviewer has come to Vietnam and when he came back, he said
that the way people eat "Pho" in the US is wrong. He wrote on his site that ketchup, pepper, and lemon should
not be added when people eat this dish because it would spoil the taste of the broth. It turned out that he was
told by a Vietnamese local who has his own idiosyncratic eating habits rather than what appeals to the general
people's taste buds. We all interpret the world differently, so relying on what other people experience is not a
good way to learn about a culture.
In conclusion, although books and films about different cultures in the world can be a good source of
knowledge, it is always necessary to gain first-hand experiences.

Some people suggest that companies should give promotions to people who have been working for them
for a long time. Do you think this is a good idea?
Some people think that higher-ranking jobs should be offered to those who have served the organization for the
longest. In this essay, however, I will challenge this school of thought.
Granted, one might argue that senior positions to workers who have spent years or even decades in the firm
because they understand the business, its ethos, its approach, and the markets it operates. Added to this is the
fact that they may have built up useful social networks both within the company and in the wider business
world. They are likely to require far less training than an outsider or less experienced colleague. Finally,
promoting loyal members of staff should incentivize colleagues, who receive the powerful message that
commitment will be rewarded.
However, this line of reasoning is not sound since long-standing employees are unlikely to innovate and take
the fresh approach that may be needed. Such workers are generally older and may not grasp the importance of

27
technology and evolution. Another counter-argument is that not having had recent relevant experience in other
organizations, could potentially lack essential skills. Finally, in order to cut the training costs for senior
positions, it is wiser to recruit workers who have a proven track record elsewhere. This can be seen in the way
most profit-making multinationals choose to 'poach' high-flying managers, strategists, engineers, or even
accountants from their rivals.
In conclusion, promoting employees solely on the basis of their seniority is wrong. I take this view on account
of the fact that innovations, which perpetuate the success of any company, tend not to come from people who
have worked for the company for the longest. All employees should, therefore, be given an equal opportunity to
be promoted

Many people today find it difficult to balance the demands of their work and personal lives. What are the
causes of this situation, and what can individuals and employers do to reduce the problem?
Finding a compromise between one's job and one's private life is probably harder than ever these days,
especially if one has a family. There are several reasons for this, but also a number of measures we can take.
Achieving a healthy balance between personal and professional life is difficult because of the increased
workload that many people have to deal with and the increasingly competitive nature of today's world of work.
With regard to the former, the predominance of the service sector means that most people work in office-related
jobs, and they find that employers expect them to stay longer or be available outside traditional office hours.
Furthermore, the economic recession has made the labor market increasingly competitive, and so workers are
under pressure to cooperate in this process, fearing loss of promotion or even redundancy if they resist.
However, there are various steps that can be taken to lessen the problem. Firstly, individuals should clarify with
their employer the times when they expect to be free of work and out of contact, thus ensuring private time.
Another positive development would be for employers to allow more flexible working hours so that staff can
take time off for important family events during the working day. Lastly, employers could offer advice and
coaching to staff in areas such as time management, stress control, and relaxation techniques. This would help
to reduce the anxiety that stems from heavy workloads and long hours.
In conclusion, the fact that most people fail to balance their work life and home life can be ascribed to the heavy
workload and the competitiveness of today's work, but also that employees and companies together can reduce
the impact.

(Band cao) Balancing work and personal life is a common aspiration, yet many individuals struggle to achieve
it. This imbalance stems from various factors, but effective strategies can help individuals attain a healthier
equilibrium.
One primary cause of the difficulty in balancing work and personal life is the increasing demands of modern
workplaces. With the rise of technology, employees are often expected to be available around the clock,
blurring the boundaries between work and home. Additionally, the competitive job market pressures individuals
to work longer hours to secure their positions and advance their careers. For example, professionals in high-
stress industries like finance or technology frequently report feeling overwhelmed by their workloads, leaving
little time for family or leisure activities. Moreover, societal expectations that equate success with constant
productivity further exacerbate this issue, making it challenging for people to prioritize personal well-being.
To counter these pressures, individuals and organizations need to take deliberate steps towards fostering a
healthier balance. As for the former, they can set clear boundaries between work and personal time. This could
involve establishing specific times when they are unavailable for work-related communication, such as after a

28
certain hour in the evening or during weekends, and dedicating specific time slots for personal activities,
hobbies, and family time. In tandem with this, companies should actively promote a culture that values
employee well-being and discourages overwork. Implementing policies like flexible working hours, remote
work options, and reasonable workload expectations can significantly improve employee satisfaction and work-
life balance. For example, companies that have implemented a four-day work week have often reported
increased productivity and employee morale.
In conclusion, the struggle to achieve work-life balance is a pervasive issue in modern society, fueled by
demanding work cultures and societal pressures. However, by implementing strategies that prioritize boundary
settingand by fostering workplace cultures that value employee well-being, individuals and organizations can
work together to create a more sustainable and fulfilling balance between the professional and personal spheres.

Many people today find they have insufficient time to spend with their families, because of the pressures
of work. What problems does this create for individuals and their families? What solutions can you
propose?
Excessive time spent at work can ultimately take a serious toll on workers and their families in various ways.
The most serious problems arising from this are burnout and family breakdown, and also two ways in which the
situation can be improved.
Arguably the gravest problem caused by overwork is the stress that the workers themselves suffer from. When a
person is working long hours, and thinking about work even outside that time, the ability to relax is severely
curtailed. This can rapidly lead to physical exhaustion and mental anxiety, which eventually undermine the
victim's overall well-being. A further serious impact is the disruption to family relationships, especially with a
spouse and children. Family members may soon become accustomed to the absence of a father or mother,
damaging the natural bonds that bind a family together and potentially eroding the security of the family unit
itself. The long-term consequent problems of family breakdown may include depression, poor self-esteem, and
academic underperformance.
To address these problems, perhaps the most effective and most immediate solution would be for employers to
incorporate a fixed amount of free time into their workers' schedules. For example, companies might commit to
a 'no work, phone calls or emails after five p.m.' policy, as is being suggested in Germany at present. This
would lessen the anxiety of high workloads and preserve family time. Another remedy may be to promote the
use of relaxation techniques among workers so that they make the most of the free time that they have.
Activities ranging from sports to yoga or family events can be used to maximize any opportunities for de-
stressing that already exist.
In conclusion, the main problems caused by working excessively seem to be stress and the breakdown of the
family unit. The key solution would lie in giving working people leisure time and helping them make better use
of it.

Nowadays many people choose to be self-employed, rather than to work for a company or organization.
Why might this be the case? What could be the disadvantages of being self-employed?
There is a growing number of people opting to start their own companies instead of working for a company.
The increased support for young entrepreneurs and technological factors are the driving factors behind this
trend. In my opinion, the main disadvantages of not having an employer are lack of finance and expertise.
The increase in the number of young entrepreneurs is widespread angel investment across a variety of industries
and the internet. The former factor can be seen, for example, in 'Shark Tank,' where some angel investors and

29
executives hear product pitches and decide whether to invest in the product. This show has launched a number
of successful products, encouraging viewers in general to be more ambitious. Added to this is the arrival of
online auction sites such as eBay, where people can sell clothes, second-hand toys, and household appliances
online.
Owners of self-run businesses are presented with a lack of finance and experience. With regard to the former,
the majority of self-employed individuals had to save up for ears or take out a loan from a bank or a financial
institution. This means that if their business does not go as planned, all of their savings will be drained and they
have to try to find work to pay their debts. This risk is avoided if they choose to work for someone else. As for
the experience, being self-employed means that they have to be in charge of everything, ranging from making
business plans, running adverts, and accounting. Most entrepreneurs find themselves lacking experience here
and there and making mistakes because of it. This increases the risk of bankruptcy.
In conclusion, the availability of capital and technological changes have led to the rising number of self-run
businesses. The drawbacks of being self-employed are the financial risks and the lack of experience.

More and more people want to buy clothes, cars, and other items from famous brands. What are the
reasons? Do you think it is a positive or negative development?
The fact that people increasingly want to own expensive cars and designer clothes has ratcheted up public
interest in why this is happening. This state of affairs can be attributed to several factors and I believe that it is a
negative phenomenon.
There are two main contributors to people aspiring to buy high-end products. Chief of these is that since these
items are often made with limited numbers, purchasing them can be considered as a form of collecting. This can
be seen in the way many people derive a great deal of satisfaction and enjoyment from buying a limited-edition
model of a car or bag. Added to this is the fact that owning extravagant items is often associated with the
projection of one's wealth and social status. For example, affluent people tend to drive a luxury car like Rolls-
Royce or Bentley or give their loved ones a Gucci handbag as a gift.
From my vantage point, the trend toward buying prohibitively expensive brand-name products is an unwelcome
development for several reasons. The first reason is that this trend is certain to promote social and materialistic
competition, causing people to equate owning more extravagant things with increased happiness and success.
This is bad for the moral and spiritual life of any society. Another point to consider is that it is simply selfish of
affluent people to buy expensive things instead of helping their fellow human beings who are in need. If they
had chosen to support financially disadvantaged people, perhaps countless lives would have been saved.
In conclusion, people increasingly wanting to purchase extravagant items can be ascribed to the scarcity of the
products, and people's need to showcase their riches. Given the unhealthy rivalry and the sense of selfishness
this trend promotes, it can only be seen as undesirable.

Some people argue that there is no point in preserving old buildings when land is so valuable in our cities.
Others believe that old buildings are an important part of our heritage and should be preserved. Discuss
both these views and state your opinion.
Opinions are divided on whether old buildings should be preserved or demolished to make room for more
accommodation or commercial developments. I believe that the decision depends on the special circumstances
of each one.
In areas where more housing is needed, many old structures are not worth keeping because they either lack
interest, or they may be dangerous. With regard to their historic value, many of them are not interesting

30
architecturally or historically, and neither are they unique in any way. Another reason for replacing them is that
they may be dangerous, damp, or in other ways unsuitable for modern cities, and for this reason, local people
would benefit from new, purpose-built accommodation or other facilities. These new developments will be
superior to the old ones they replaced. An additional benefit of building new accommodation is that in some
cities, housing in the central areas is prohibitively expensive, so new construction will reduce the living costs
for ordinary people.
However, even though many old buildings are of no value, as seen above, there are others that are worth
preserving for their historic or architectural interest. A good example of this in Vietnam is the Royal Palace at
Hue, which no one would dream of destroying because as well as being of great historical importance, it is also
a magnet for tourists. Another important building is Ho Chi Minh's house in the center of Hanoi. This, although
it may not be important for its architecture, is of great value as a historic artifact for the local people. These
structures should be preserved and maintained for their cultural value, regardless of the financial value of the
land they lie on.
In conclusion, although there are many buildings that must be kept for their cultural or historic value, others
should be replaced by housing or other developments.

When designing a building, the most important factor is the intended use of the building rather than its
outward appearance. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some people believe that when designing a building, how it is supposed to be used should be prioritized over
how it looks. Personally, I disagree with this school of thought because both the intended use and the
appearance of a building are equally important.
On the one hand, if a building is unable to perform its most basic functions, then it is undoubtedly a failed
project. For example, if an architect is building a primary school then they must make sure that there are
parking areas that can cater to the need for parking of staff, teachers, and parents. A beautiful car park that can
only accommodate a handful of cars is certainly a failure. Inside the school, they also need classrooms that are
large enough, hallways that do not get easily too crowded, a good number and location of restrooms, and many
other pragmatic concerns.
On the other hand, it would be wrong to overlook the outward look of a building when designing it. In my view,
the appearance of any building, in many ways, connects with what it is used for. To look for a supporting
example, one needs to look no further than KFC, a well-known fast-food brand whose dominant colors are red,
and white. These colors are so deeply ingrained into the brand itself that it would be a disaster if the owner of a
KFC restaurant decided to have fancy black booths, and tables and also chose black as the dominant color for
the exterior design of his venue.
In conclusion, how a building works is equally as important as how that same building looks. If the architect is
overly focused on how the school looks, then he may sacrifice practicality for aesthetic values and vice versa.

Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses
on a wider area of land. What solution is better?
City planning has never been a straightforward issue for any local government. Many cities have decided to
build high-rise apartments to accommodate the ever-increasing urban population, while others have chosen to
expand housing areas horizontally rather than vertically, which in my view is a superior decision.
Granted, one might argue that providing houses on a wider stretch of land is a better choice. This is predicated
on the assumption that it is safer for people to live in such a place if there is, say, an earthquake or a fire. This is

31
reinforced by the number of residents living in high-rise buildings losing their lives because of such unfortunate
events. However, as admirable as such a scheme may appear to be, it would not be a long-term and sustainable
one due to the scarcity of land in urban areas. This, coupled with the fact that it takes more financial and human
resources to ensure the safety of such a large area, raises the question of affordability and ultimately
practicality.
Cities should construct taller buildings for a variety of reasons. The most important is that this approach allows
thousands of city dwellers to live in an area that could otherwise house only a fraction of that number. Of
course, there is a question of safety involved, as seen above. Nevertheless, there are now many safety measures
that even residents can take to protect themselves and their loved ones in such events. For example, they can
buy protective equipment like inflatable parachutes that allow them to safely escape from even the 50th floor.
Local governments can also ensure their citizens' safety by having emergency response teams of firefighters and
paramedics in place at all times.
In conclusion, given how scarce land is in most cities, accommodating the increase in city inhabitants by
building houses skyward is better than doing so horizontally, provided that safety procedures are taken
seriously.

A person's worth nowadays seems to be judged according to social status and material possessions. Old-
fashioned values such as honor, kindness, and trust no longer seem important. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?
It is argued that people are judged these days by how much money they have rather than their morals and
character. I personally think that there is little to disagree with in this school of thought, as I will explain now.
Firstly, people seem to hold someone in high regard if they have designer clothes, a luxury car, or the latest
smartphone and rarely look inside that person. This superficial attitude is common in all walks of life, whether it
be as simple as how a store attendant treats his customers in a shop. A personal example would be that when I
wear a business suit, people treat me with respect and courtesy, but when I wear shorts and flip-flops at the
weekend, they are very surprised that I am a decent person.
To add further credence to my assertion, I note how celebrities are revered. Many singers, models, and actors
have neither talent nor moral fiber, but they are still idolized by countless people, especially the young
generation because they have a high position in society and seem to have a glamorous lifestyle. To provide a
supporting example, one need to look no further than Miley Cyrus, who does not write her own songs and
openly confesses to taking drugs and having casual sex, yet she is still adored by people all over the world.
In conclusion, being a good person is not as important as wealth, fame, and where you are on the social ladder
these days and this can easily be seen by how we treat those with no money and how we look up to vacuous
stars.

There have been many inventions in human history, such as the wheel. Some people think the most
important thing is the Internet. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
It is universally believed that the Internet has so far been the most groundbreaking innovation that mankind has
ever witnessed. While this is valid to a certain extent, I would contend that the invention of electricity is
infinitely more important than the Web.
It is understandable why some people subscribe to the idea that the Internet is the most significant thing that has
ever been invented. The key rationale in favor of this argument is that the Internet empowers a range of other
creations that completely change human lives. Instantaneous communication tools such as Skype or Facebook,

32
which rely on Internet connection, allow individuals and organizations to interact with each other almost
immediately at minimal cost. This has resulted in substantial savings for both individuals and companies and
certainly plays a pivotal role in making the world a global village. In addition to making interpersonal
communication cheaper and more accessible, the Internet also gives people access to a wealth of knowledge
available on websites. The implication of this is that people become much more informed and educated than
they were at the time prior to the advent of the Internet. For example, while people in the past had to rely on
teachers for their education, they can now learn anything they want as long as they have a device connected to
the Web. It could be said that this ability has offered many individuals an opportunity to realize their ambitions
and dreams.
However, I am convinced that electricity is the most important creation in the history of mankind. First and
foremost, not only the Internet but also a great number of other revolutionary technologies are useless without
electricity. For example, although personal computers have become very sophisticated and powerful, they
cannot function without being plugged into a power source. This shows how indispensable electricity is in most
things that humans create. Another reason that fortifies electricity's importance is the fact that we are heavily
dependent on it in our daily lives. For example, without electric lights, the world would live in total darkness,
and people's lives would be much more inconvenient if they did not have appliances powered by electricity,
such as washing machines or televisions. These examples are a testament to how electricity is the most powerful
thing that has ever been invented.
In conclusion, while the importance of the Internet is undeniable, I firmly believe that it is electricity that is at
the core of every important invention in human history.

More and more people in the city live in homes with small spaces or no outdoor areas. Do you think it is a
negative or positive development?
With the growing population of cities, more urban dwellers have to live in compact houses with no outdoor
spaces. In my opinion, despite certain drawbacks, this tiny house movement is more associated with benefits to
urban residents and society as a whole.
On the one hand, I must admit that living in a tiny house is disadvantageous with respect to city dwellers' well-
being. Large living spaces have been proven to be instrumental in helping inhabitants, especially children,
nurture their imagination and creativity. The young generation raised in tiny houses could be deprived of
chances to realize their full creative potential. Besides that, negative impacts are also on adult residents. Dealing
with heavy workload and exorbitant living costs, adults in urban areas usually have a stressful life, which is not
alleviated but aggravated when going back to their stuffy rooms. Feeling cramped could be unpleasant and
unbearable for some people, which could constantly trap them in negative feelings.
Aside from the drawbacks mentioned above, I firmly believe that this tiny house movement should be
encouraged because of its greater benefits associated with urban planning (1), more savings (2), and home
control (3). (Idea 1) With regard to the former, living in compact houses is probably the best answer to the
overpopulation problem so far, since it can provide more living spaces. (Idea 2) As far as savings are concerned,
by living in this condition, urban residents can lower their housing costs, such as rental fees and house
maintenance costs. (Idea 3) Safety could also be added to the list, as small houses are easier to control and
supervise. This choice of accommodation is optimal for inhabitants in densely populated cities like Hong Kong
or Singapore. In these places, the dwellers could afford their expenses and be shielded from burglaries and
crimes more than those living in huge houses in Chicago, in the US.

33
In conclusion, although the downsides to citizens' wellbeing are considered, living in houses with limited spaces
seems to be more beneficial to city dwellers and communities, as it could resolve problems related to urban
settings, cost savings, and residents' safety

People in the community can buy cheaper products nowadays. Do the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages?
These days, buyers have a wider range of choices for more affordable commodities. Although some benefits can
be seen from the phenomenon, the drawbacks are more significant.
On the one hand, the provision (sự cung cấp) of cheaper goods presents several advantages. Regarding
economic merits (lợi ích tiết kiệm) for individuals, customers can now enjoy, which is particularly favorable for
households with limited incomes. In comparison with the past in Vietnam, most families could not buy a TV;
however, TV is currently among the most common electronic devices in every household, owing to reduced
prices. (dùng V-pII của Verb để làm tính từ cho Noun phrase) On the societal level, the affordability of
consumer products promotes people’s purchasing power, hence the development of the economy (hence + noun
= lead to + noun ). It is common knowledge that the market’s demand for products increases when
commodities’ exorbitant prices (giá cả đắt đỏ) are reduced. Therefore, people will be attracted to buying these
products on a large scale, fostering the general prosperity (thúc đẩy sự thịnh vượng chung) of a country’s
economy.
However, those advantages above still cannot overshadow the disadvantages. First, the quality of commodities
might be only secondary when profit is primary for businesses because goods’ prices are inexpensive, and the
quantity needed is enormous. In the long term, without quality products, customers will gradually lose their
trust in those products’ manufacturers (nhà sản xuất), which directly jeopardizes (=threats) the economy.
Another repercussion (=consequence) worth mentioning is that the environment may suffer. In order to meet
the increased demand from buyers, companies have to expand their factories and accelerate their production
process. Such expansion would do grave (serious) harm to the surroundings due to their toxic waste and
exhaust.
In conclusion, the benefits of cheapening modern goods should not be overrated as the disadvantages regarding
products’ quality and the environment are weightier.

Some people think that newly built houses should follow the style of the old houses in the local areas,
while others think that people should have the freedom to build houses of their own style. Discuss both
views and give your opinion.
It is suggested that architecture in the same neighborhood should follow the same traditional style to ensure
uniqueness. However, I personally believe that such an idea seems impractical in the modern world, and that
architectural freedom should be given to households.
Some people argue that the homogeneity of the exterior design of houses could add a touch of beauty and
uniqueness to the local area. Several old towns in the world have gained popularity for their distinctive
landscape of traditional houses against the backdrop of modern cities. Hoi An, an ancient town in Vietnam,
could exemplify this point as new houses in the town are constructed with yellow walls and a brown roof to
blend in with their surroundings. Although such an attempt is acclaimed for its contributions to the preservation
of traditions and old architecture, I believe it is not a viable practice to apply everywhere. Since traditional
houses are usually one-story tall with small rooms and narrow doors, they may be inappropriate for extended
families and the different demands of the households.

34
As opposed to the impracticality of such an idea, there are strong grounds for allowing people the freedom to
design their houses as they wish. Compelling people to comply with one architectural style could, in some
cases, be unfeasible and even go against their freedom of choice. Besides that, only when people are allowed to
design and decorate their houses to best meet their needs, do houses fulfill the real purpose of their existence as
comfortable shelters for families. This is particularly the case for people who have a huge passion for having a
distinctively designed or even bizarre-looking (strange) home, as long as these houses make them happy.
In conclusion, I am firmly of the view that conforming to one traditional architecture is not a working idea in
the modern world, in which people's right to have their home custom-designed to cater for their needs and
preferences is protected by laws.

Scientists agree that people are damaging their health by eating too much junk food. Some people think
that the answer to this problem is to educate people. Others think education will not work. Discuss both
views and give your opinion.
In the modern world, there has been an ongoing trend of people eating unhealthy food, posing a wide range of
detrimental threats to their health. While some people consider education as an ineffective measure to resolve
the problem, I would contend that this practice would serve as a definitely workable solution to tackling such a
problem.
There is a common belief that education would not be an effective method of deterring people from consuming
a large amount of junk food. To commence with, the hectic modern living style (lối sống hiện đại bận rộn) is
deemed as the root (the culprit)... of this issue, and this would not be efficiently addressed by education. For
example, there are many office workers in favor of fast food due to its convenience and portable manner (dễ
dàng mang theo). Despite their profound nutritional knowledge and awareness, these busy consumers opt for
(choose) fast food for the sake of (vì mục đích) time saving. Besides, there are other efficient solutions to
curbing (=control) junk food consumption. For instance, the government could impose higher taxation
schemes on junk food. By raising convenience food prices, such a strict legal action could yield immediate and
widespread effects on consumer behavior, thus bringing forth a quicker decline in junk food consumption
compared to education.
However, I would strongly endorse (support) education as an effective key to the junk food overconsumption
problem. The primary reason is that an appropriate education would efficiently heighten (raise) eaters'
awareness, which may act as a deterrent to (prevent) people's opting for unhealthy food. To illustrate, once
(when, as soon as) people gain insights into and awareness of life-threatening cancers and diseases caused by
overeating fast food, they would be more likely to put an end to such a harmful eating habit. Another
supporting reason is that nutrition education programs, compared to other measures such as imposing higher
taxes, could result in more sustainable awareness and behavior change (sự bền vững về nhận thức và thay đổi
thái độ) among people from all walks of life (mọi người, nhiều tầng lớp), especially children and adolescents
(thiếu niên). These people will cultivate a life-time habit of (hình thành thói quen lâu dài) refraining from (kiềm
chế) junk food or restricting such intake (lượng nạp vào)
In conclusion, although there are reasonable arguments against education, I firmly believe that educational
measures would significantly mitigate junk food consumption and deter the problem from being exacerbated
further.

Some people say that nowadays children have too much freedom. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?

35
It is true that children now have more freedom than their previous generations to some extent. (Thesis
statement) However, I am of the opinion that their current levels of what is called freedom are far from being
excessive.
(TOPIC SENTENCE – State ideas right in the TS) On the one hand, it is apparent that parents have been
giving their children certain levels of freedom in choosing friends and clothes. (Idea 1) With respect to the
former, children can now choose friends with whom they want to play, regardless of their different
backgrounds. (One supporting sentence for Idea 1 – make a comparison with the past time) This was
uncommon in the past when parents of wealthy families only permitted their children to play with those coming
from the same privileged class. (Idea 2) In addition to this, today’s teenagers are also entitled to decide on
what sort of clothes they wear. (One supporting sentence for Idea 2 – make a comparison with the past
time) It is a common sight now that a girl dresses in menswear, which was never the case for their parents’
generation.
(TOPIC SENTENCE) On the other hand, certain aspects, such as children’s academic pursuits or daily
activities, are still solely decided by their parents. (Idea 1 – an example would make the argument more
convincing) Take Vietnam as a typical example. Many young Vietnamese students are forced to take arts,
science, or sports classes, however much depressed and discouraged they might feel (cấu trúc nhấn mạnh vs
However). (One supporting sentence for Idea 1 – Explanation) Perhaps parents do this since they expect
their children to stand out rather than be left behind by their peers in the current context of harsh
competitiveness, even in primary school years. (Idea 2) Moreover, as the world is now filled with ever-
increasing crimes, some parents tend to overprotect and closely watch over their children by not allowing them
to play outdoors without their observation. (One supporting sentence for Idea 2 – ways parents protect their
children) Strict curfew and restrictions are in place as a means of guarding youngsters from possible harm, but
curtail (=control) their freedom to a great extent.
(CONCLUSION – Restate opinion in a different way + Summarize the main ideas) In conclusion, the fact
that children nowadays can make their own choices in some aspects is clearly seen. However, saying that
children are enjoying too much freedom is seemingly an exaggeration, as many of them are even under constant
parental supervision in terms of their education and participation in daily activities in this more demanding yet
less safe world.

Whether or not someone achieves their aims is mostly a matter of luck. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
The debate whether luck is the primary determinant of success in achieving targets has been heated constantly.
My position is that hard work and determination are far more important than luck, while luck should not be
considered as the main precursor to the attainment of one's goals.
I believe the saying that fortune has a major part to play is just a fallacy. One clear reason is that although
there may have been a number of people reaching their goals with good luck, such good luck, in most cases,
only comes to people who have worked hard. Take Mendeleev as an example. As a research chemist, he
worked tirelessly for a few decades, until one day in his dream, the complete arrangement of the elements
appeared. The appearance of this arrangement could be ascribed to luck, but no one could deny the extreme
effort that Mendeleev had exerted. Another obvious reason for my belief is that luck could only lead people
to short-term achievements, and there is nothing to ascertain that it would continue to exist in the long run. The
over-reliance on good fortune, as a result, would prevent people from achieving their long-term or life-long
aims.

36
By contrast, I advocate the notion that the role of being industrious and determined is more significant than
luck. Thomas Edison, one of the greatest inventors in the 20th century, is an excellent example of such a
notion. He conducted numerous experiments with the filament until the finest light bulb was produced, and his
hard work, rather than luck, was acknowledged by the entire human race. Another clear evidence of this
notion is the case of Nguyen Ngoc Ky. This disabled man could not write by hand, but he was determined
enough to teach himself to write by foot. The fact that he would then become one of the greatest teachers in the
history of education in Vietnam provides a concrete foundation that even with bad luck, determination could
result in goal achievement.
In brief, I opine that the importance of luck in determining goal attainment is overstated, while there are many
more significant factors to consider, namely hard work and determination.

In some countries, an increasing number of people are suffering from health problems as a result of
eating too much fast food. It is therefore necessary for governments to impose a higher tax on this kind of
food. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Recently, the widespread presence of fast food has caused many policymakers to consider specific taxation
schemes that may fundamentally reduce the consumption of this type of food. However, I contend that taxation
may not be an effective solution for the following reasons.
It is understandable why some people advocate such a new tax policy. The high-priced fast food, as a result of
increased taxation, can reduce its sales, meaning that people are able to avoid a variety of illnesses related to the
overconsumption of precooked meals, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and even cancer. However,
this notion seems unconvincing as consumers may still opt for fast food for the ease of life it brings, despite the
higher prices. In a world with a busy lifestyle, there could be extremely few customers willing to wait for fifteen
minutes during their lunchtime to be served with a healthy meal. In other words, food quality can sometimes
be sacrificed for the sake of time-saving. Convenience, on the other hand, is perhaps the most significant
decisive factor when the majority of the population chooses what to eat on a regular basis. This is an absolute
advantage of fast food, due to its intrinsic value of being "fast", making it the prevalent choice regardless of
the health hazards it brings.
From a financial perspective, an increased tax on convenience food could even be a counterproductive
solution for the problem. This is primarily because fast food is an economical choice for a large number of
average-income working people. If such a tax policy is introduced, those who are on a limited food budget will
be the ones who will suffer. It will not, therefore, mean that they switch to healthier food, which still remains
relatively more expensive. As a result, a fast food tax alone may only place a financial burden on the average
taxpayer.
To conclude, it is possibly senseless to convey the idea that a higher tax on harmful precooked food is an
appropriate measure, as it may lead to heavier routine expenditure of the residents.

In recent years, the family structure has changed, as well as family roles. What are the changes that have
occurred? Do you think these changes are positive or negative?
The changes in family structure and family roles have become a major topic of concern in modern society.
Some of the main changes will be identified before an evaluation on whether this is a positive or negative trend
is made.
A few drastic changes could be observed in families today. The most obvious one is the decreased size of an
average family in society. In Vietnam, for example, a majority of extended families of three generations or more

37
living under the same roof have been transformed into nuclear families with only parents and children. In
addition, there is also a significant change in terms of the roles of the father and the mother in a family. The
responsibility of males as the sole breadwinners of the family has now been shared with their partners, and
women now have equal working opportunities compared with their male counterparts. Accordingly, household
duties are also shared equally between the two sexes.
I contend that this new family structure is without doubt beneficial for all families. As regards the smaller
family size, each family member could benefit from an increased sense of freedom. For instance, parents have
more time for themselves now, compared with the situation in the past when they had to bear the responsibility
for taking care of both grandparents and children. With respect to the change in family roles, women may reap
the benefit of having their own career and thus financial freedom. Men also gain from this change since they
have been freed from the financial pressure of being the only source of income in the family.
To conclude, the most apparent changes in today's families include reduced family size and shared financial and
household responsibility between men and women. All the existing data has provided a concrete foundation that
these changes are beneficial for all members of the family..

In some parts of the world, it is becoming increasingly popular to try to find out one's own family history.
Why do you think people do this? Do you think it is a positive or negative development?
In recent years, searching for one’s own family background has been more common in many countries. This
practice stems from various reasons, including internal and external factors. From my perspective,
comprehending what forebears have been through can benefit us in many ways.
The increasing popularity of family history investigation can be ascribed to personal curiosity about one's
ancestors, together with stimulation from mass media. Considered as a human instinct, curiosity urges us to
discover not merely the whole world surrounding us broadly, but also our own family tree insightfully. Through
research on antecedents and specific family milestones, people can gain a profound understanding of who their
former generations were and how deeply geographic and demographic factors shaped their family
characteristics and traditions, and how their own family distinguishes itself from others. In addition, mass media
is also part of this fever, through a series of generation-related posts published. For example, a recent viral
video pointing out unimaginable blood bonds between well-known figures, like between Kate Middleton and
Guy Ritchie or between Kate Middleton and Dakota Fanning, has significantly sparked people’s enthusiasm to
research their background with the goal of finding out whether one has a connection with famous people or not.
Regarding its impacts, this trend exerts advantageous influences on personal and communal development. The
gathered information about our own family tree could provide us with useful insight into our health history and
hereditary diseases like cancer or porphyria for better treatment. The hemophilia case of the British royal family
could exemplify this point. Hemophilia did not turn up before Queen Victoria, and all her successors have been
carriers of the disease. As her descendants married into other political bloodlines, the gene has ravaged the royal
houses of England, Spain, and Russia. With knowledge about their inherited genes, royal members could take
action to save their lives, which could be taken away even as a result of a minor cut.
In conclusion, a search for family background is gaining popularity mainly due to people’s curious minds and
media-based incentives. Insight into antecedents is the key for modern people to trace any genetic diseases they
might suffer from to have better health protection plans.

38
In some countries, more and more people are buying imported food rather than buying food produced
locally. Why do people buy imported food? What can be done to encourage people to buy locally
produced food?
There has been a growing trend of consumers opting for imported foods over those produced domestically. This
essay will first outline the underlying reasons behind this preference before suggesting some measures to
promote the consumption of locally sourced foods.
One primary reason for the preference for imported food is the perception of better quality and variety.
Often, imported foods are seen as offering a wider range of choices, particularly in terms of exotic or out-of-
season items that local produce cannot match. For example, consumers in colder climates can enjoy tropical
fruits year-round, thanks to imports. Additionally, certain imported products have built a reputation for superior
quality, such as Italian olive oil or Belgian chocolate, which local alternatives struggle to compete with.
To encourage the purchase of local foods, several strategies should be implemented. First, it is imperative to
raise public awareness about the environmental impact of importing food. The carbon footprint associated with
transporting food across long distances is considerable, and emphasizing this could likely encourage more
environmentally conscious consumers to choose local options. Such a measure should be executed in parallel
with promoting the quality and benefits of local produce, which can shift consumer preferences. This can be
achieved through marketing campaigns that highlight the freshness, nutritional value, and support for local
economies provided by buying local.
In conclusion, the appeal of imported food stems from perceived quality and variety. However, through
environmental education and the promotion of the unique qualities of local produce, consumers can be swayed
towards supporting local food industries, benefiting both the environment and local economies.

These days, several nations experience an increasing number of buyers who prefer to purchase foreign brand
food rather than the local one. As far as I am concerned, this phenomenon correlates with numerous reasons that
need to be addressed in an attempt to direct local consumers' interest towards domestically manufactured food.
Several motives behind this trend could be mentioned. Firstly, the tax on imported goods has been lowered,
allowing foreign-manufactured food to reach more local consumers. To specify, in contrast to the past when
high-quality but pricey imported food seemed to be beyond the reach of ordinary consumers, Vietnam's
participation in international trading organizations requiring all their members to remove tariffs has helped
reduce foreign food prices to competitive levels suitable for an increasing number of native buyers. Secondly,
the living standards of citizens in many countries have been significantly improved, which stimulates and
enables people's demands for expensive foreign food that local enterprises are unable to produce. Taking
Vietnam as an example, thanks to the booming economy, local people find it easier to secure lucrative jobs with
generous incomes, enabling them to enjoy costly imported fruits more than ever.
To boost local food consumption, many feasible initiatives could be carried out by domestic food-producing
firms and the government. On a large scale, a long-term nationwide campaign should be launched, calling for
natives to prioritize using local food products and making them aware that this is a measure to boost their
nation's economy. On the small scale, local food-producing companies should invest in improving modern
technology in the manufacturing process, enhancing their product quality with the aim of convincing native
consumers to consider choosing local food as a reliable alternative to foreign food in terms of nutrition and
delicious taste.

39
In conclusion, lowered tax on imported food and higher living standards of locals are two of the factors
contributing to the growth in food produced overseas. Such a trend could be reversed by the application of
several plausible solutions, with the hope of encouraging local consumers to choose local food.

More and more young people from wealthy countries are spending a short time doing unpaid work such
as teaching and building houses for communities in poorer countries. What are the reasons for this? Who
benefits more from this, the communities or these young people?
There has been an ongoing trend of many youngsters from prosperous nations deciding to spend their time
doing voluntary work in underprivileged countries. Some of the prominent reasons for this phenomenon will be
discussed before the benefits of both individuals and developing countries are analyzed.
There are several convincing reasons associated with this practice. The most significant factor is that doing such
unpaid work in poor countries would be a comparative advantage for the young when applying for a job in the
future. In other words, in this fierce and competitive job market, a candidate possessing an application file
accompanied by only great scores could not be the ideal one that a recruiter is looking for; therefore, he or she
needs outstanding volunteering experience to be able to surpass other rivals. Another reason worth mentioning
is that young generations could foster the feeling of community when participating in unsalaried work. Their
voluntary efforts help to give prominence to the value of sharing and the sense of social responsibility to secure
improved humanity and international awareness about disadvantaged places.
It is undeniable that both the young volunteers and the underdeveloped countries could equally gain from this
phenomenon. Concerning the young, it is apparent that the aforementioned meaningful work not only brings the
doers unforgettable life lessons, gives them hands–on experience, but also helps expand their network of
relationships. After such journeys to the Third World, they gradually grow more mature and confident, realizing
the diversity of life by meeting people from all walks of life. In regard to poorer countries, they may have a
chance to raise the living standards of their dwellers. For instance, knowledge related to environmental
protection or health care, which they have acquired from overseas volunteers, possibly improves their living
conditions afterwards.
To sum up, the requirement of a more competitive profile and the determination to support financially
disadvantaged countries are the two principal elements that make young people join a wide range of voluntary
activities. I would contend that both the volunteers and the receivers are the beneficiaries of the practice above.

It is suggested that everyone wants to have a car, a television, and a fridge. Do the disadvantages of this
development for society outweigh the advantages?
Leaping to the twenty-first century, materialistic people desire numerous amenities, including a TV, a car, and a
fridge. While such a burgeoning demand has some positive effects on individuals as well as their country's
economy, I contend that the detrimental impacts of this trend overshadow its benefits and should not be
overlooked.
On the one hand, modern citizens cannot reject the merits that the practice of chasing materialism brings. The
first and foremost advantage worth mentioning is the incentives for hard work. To be more specific, when
possessing conveniences becomes a standard of modern life, people would be motivated to strive as hard as they
could to purchase those consumer goods. Another advantageous point of such a lifestyle is the economic
benefits generated. As a large number of citizens purchase amenities such as cars, televisions, and fridges, this
trend would definitely boost the production, distribution, and trading of these items and thus accelerate the
economic development of a country.

40
However, I firmly believe that the disadvantages of this trend are inevitable and far more perilous. A
materialistic lifestyle encourages people to nurture misleading perceptions of life values. People would strive to
earn money to fulfill their demands of owning these amenities at all costs, even resorting to illegal or immoral
actions. Secondly, impoverished residents are likely to be in debt traps due to the fear of being left behind. In
particular, they may seek financial aid from a bank or other people to purchase those comforts that are
standardized by modern society. The inability to return such debts renders these people vulnerable to financial
difficulties or even legal punishments.
In conclusion, even though materialism is associated with apparent advantages for individuals as well as
economic organizations, I am of the strong belief that the detrimental sides of such a belief are much more
concerning and should not be taken for granted.

Competitiveness is a positive quality for people in most societies. How does competition affect
individuals? Is it a positive or negative trend?
One of the most remarkable developments has been the exponential increase in global population and, by
extension, rising competition. In light of this, competitiveness is being considered a desirable personality trait.
In this essay, I am going to demonstrate the various effects that the fierce rivalry today has on people before
showing how this is a positive trend.
An increasingly competitive society affects individuals in numerous ways. First, people are doing their best to
be more competent. This situation manifests itself most starkly in the job market. As employment is becoming
scarce/, job seekers are having to study new skills and obtain higher qualifications to gain an edge over others.
Second, rising com… is also causing people more stress. Vietnam’s university placement exam is a case in
point. Because students have to vie with each other for a place in college, they have to take many cram classes
in addition to attending school. The process of preparing for the placement exam is thus very mentally taxing
for them.
While more competition does indeed make life more stressful, I am convinced that this setback pales in
comparison with the benefits that this trend brings about. This is simply because competitiveness drives
progress. For instance, because of intense rivalry, companies constantly have to improve their offerings, and
employers today have access to an extremely skilled workforce. This is a boon to innovation and the economy,
and society is better off as a result.
In conclusion, as people have to compete more and more, they are becoming more drained but also more
capable, and the pros of this development far outweigh the cons.

If people go to live in another country, they should follow the customs and traditions of the new country.
Do you agree or disagree?
The compliance of immigrants with the customs and traditions of the country of residence has been accepted as
a spoken rule around the globe. I contend that such a concession is completely necessary.
Adherence to new community customs keeps migrants away from social conflicts. Due to the fact that some of
the socially accepted behaviors of immigrants in their home country would turn out to be unacceptable in the
new one, these people may be dragged into social conflicts if they fail to respect local rules. For instance, the
habit of eating dog meat among Vietnamese or South Korean people would lead to social antagonism and even
lawsuits if they continue to practice their habit when residing in Western countries, where such an action is
considered immoral and illegal.

41
More importantly, adaptation to local customs is the vital key for expatriates to integrate into the local
community. Traditional and customary values have long been established in the lifestyles of local dwellers, and
these values shape the way they judge and get along with other community members. Socially conflicting
behaviors of immigrants may create prejudice against them among local residents, and the continuation of those
behaviors would render migrants as social outcasts. Since deeply rooted traditions are obviously unlikely to
change, newcomers to the community have no choice but to adhere to those customary rules in order to secure
local acceptance. The efforts of acculturation of immigrants help them to build new relationships and live in
harmony with local dwellers.
From the above reasons, I am firmly convinced that adhering to local customs and traditions plays an
indispensable part in the immigrants’ assimilation process. This practice should be adopted and exercised by
expatriates all around the world.

Most people have forgotten the meaning behind traditional and religious festivals; during festival
periods, people nowadays only want to enjoy themselves. To what extent do you agree or disagree with
this opinion?
Some people argue that we no longer remember the original meaning of festivals, and that most of us treat them
as opportunities to have fun. While I agree that enjoyment seems to be the priority during festival times, I do not
agree that people have forgotten what these festivals mean.
On the one hand, religious and traditional festivals have certainly become times for celebration. In the UK,
Christmas is a good example of a festival period when people are most concerned with shopping, giving and
receiving presents, decorating their homes, and enjoying traditional meals with their families. Most people look
forward to Christmas as a holiday period, rather than a time to practice religion. Similar behavior can be seen
during non-religious festivals, such as Bonfire Night. People associate this occasion with making fires,
watching firework displays, and perhaps going to large events in local parks; in other words, enjoyment is
people's primary goal.
However, I disagree with the idea that the underlying meaning of such festivals has been forgotten. In UK
primary schools, children learn in detail about the religious reasons for celebrating Christmas, Easter, and a
variety of festivals in other religions. For example, in late December, children sing Christmas songs which have
a religious content, and they may even perform nativity plays telling the story of Jesus' birth. Families also play
a role in passing on the knowledge of religious festivals' deeper significance to the next generation. The same is
true for festivals that have a historical background, such as Bonfire Night or Halloween, in the sense that people
generally learn the stories behind these occasions at an early age.
In conclusion, although people mainly want to enjoy themselves during festivals, I believe that they are still
aware of the reasons for these celebrations.

The main visitors to museums and historical sites are tourists, not local people. Why is it the case? What
can be done to attract local people to these places?
Tourists are generally drawn to museums and historical locations when visiting new countries. However,
records have shown local people’s low attendance at these attractions. Some explanations will be put forward
before solutions can be drawn to tackle this problem.
There are several reasons why tourists, instead of the local people, come to museums and historical places.
First, these locations can provide visitors with a comprehensive overview of the traditions in the locality
(particular area) in which they are situated. As a result, such destinations are generally more appealing to the

42
newcomers than to the locals, who do not need to familiarise themselves with the traditional values of the
region. Moreover, because the layout of museums and historical houses is likely to remain unchanged through
the years, they can be visually unattractive to the local inhabitants, who may have been to these sites at least
once in their younger years.
Several measures can be implemented to promote locals’ attendance rate at buildings for historic relics (di tích)
and museums. The main solution is to change the public’s perception of such places as sites for only
monotonous activities. Should civic events, including weddings, anniversaries, and concerts, be allowed to be
held in these locations, they would attract substantial public attention to historical values.(đảo ngữ câu đkiện
L1) Another resolution is that historians and preservationists should be featured more frequently in the media,
with their articles on the tremendous worth of museums and historical remains.
To conclude, historical areas and museums can be uninteresting for local citizens because they can be too
familiar with the culture that these places depict. To better this, there should be more media coverage on
historical assets, and also more open-door policies to use such locations as spots for more public-oriented
activities.

Museums and art galleries should concentrate on works that show the history and culture of their own
country rather than works from other parts of the world. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is believed that when curating exhibits for museums, the emphasis should be on items that reflect national
values in lieu of those that represent foreign cultures. While the importance of local exhibits is irrefutable, I
believe a combination of both national and international works is warranted in museums of the present day.
It is understandable why some people subscribe to the view that the exhibits inside a museum should be about
one’s own country. The key rationale is that this type of curation could instill patriotism in visitors and help
them be more appreciative of their own nation’s values and rich heritage. The Museum of Ethnology in
Vietnam perfectly exemplifies this principle. By looking at the exhibits at this museum, which aim to depict/
portray/ capture the unique lifestyles of many different ethnic minorities in Vietnam, visitors may learn to
appreciate their country’s diversity. This is a testament to how museums and art galleries that house domestic
exhibits could foster/ kindle national pride.
Notwithstanding the paramount significance of national exhibits, I am convinced that museums today must also
attach importance to international works. In light of globalization, cross-cultural understanding is becoming
more important than ever. This understanding can be achieved by having more museums display works that
educate the public about the history and culture of nations the world over. For example, due to their past
conflicts, the Vietnamese tend to harbor great hostility/enmity towards Americans and have a lot of
misunderstanding about this country. An exhibition that showcases the anti-war movement in the U.S. and
highlights the suffering of American soldiers and their families could help quell the anger and prejudice among
Vietnamese patrons.
In conclusion, while it is indeed necessary to retain exhibits that represent national history and culture, I believe
museums should also include works that promote an international understanding.

Some people think that studying from the past offers no benefits to today's life, while others believe that
history is a valuable source of information for us. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
The function of history in modern life has become a heated topic of discussion in the modern world. Despite the
arguments refuting the importance of historical knowledge, I am more convinced that history is an invaluable
source of information for contemporary humans.

43
On the one hand, some people believe that historical knowledge is of no useful benefit for modern life. One
noticeable reason is that learning about historical and sorrowful events in the past would bring painful feelings
and loss of faith in humanity, rather than certain benefits. For example, memorizing terrorist attacks or
inhumane events in the past seems to leave doleful emotion and render (= cause) modern people miserable since
they cannot reverse history. In addition, most knowledge legacies in the past have become outdated in the
modern contexts in which breakthroughs take place daily. Therefore, findings from researching history would
be deemed unnecessary and have limited value to modern development.
On the other hand, I am of the opinion that one of the most valuable references nowadays comes from history.
Firstly, the young generation can have more opportunities to access and inherit legacies from their ancestors.
Past knowledge and discoveries could create a concrete foundation on which people can further develop
advances with the goal of generating considerable contributions to modern humankind. Secondly, learning from
mistakes in the previous growing process is an immensely valuable experience that modern people can use to
avoid previous generations’ mistakes. For example, by analyzing causes leading to disastrous world wars,
governmental officials can draw lessons learnt, trying to compromise and abstain from provocations triggering
another war.
In conclusion, from the above reasons, even though the role of history is undermined by some people, I would
embrace the contribution of history as humankind’s precious source of information.

For many employers, formal academic qualifications are becoming more important than experience.
Why is that? Is it a positive or negative development?
Formal qualifications are now considered to be one of the most decisive elements in the recruitment process of
many organizations. This essay will discuss the underlying reason for this trend/development, and the adverse
(negative or harmful) impacts that can be exerted on students and society.
Formal academic qualifications are now preferred because they are proof of a candidate's competence. As
courses incorporated in university curricula are often demanding, it is undeniable that students have to exert
themselves (try very hard) to accomplish their studies and obtain a degree. This means that qualifications
holders, especially high-achievers / the top percentile, have been well-equipped with sufficient specialized
knowledge to become eligible employees. This is particularly the case for research-related / knowledge-based
jobs in which academic excellence, rather than experience or skills, is of great importance.
Although a focus on qualifications may make the recruitment process efficient and effortless, I am concerned
that this is a negative trend. An increasing emphasis on formal degrees would discourage students from
improving practical skills or accumulating hands-on/practical/empirical working experience. On a larger scale,
recruitment based on qualifications would give rise to an unskilled and inexperienced workforce. This situation
manifests itself starkly in Vietnam, where a huge proportion of university graduates, even valedictorians, who
are sadly lacking in interpersonal skills, have gone unemployed. This warrants the issue of skill training for the
youth, instead of exam-oriented lessons only.
In conclusion, the preference for formal academic qualifications among employers is understandable since they
reflect job applicants' ability to some extent. However, I would contend that this is a negative development as it
undermines the importance of hands-on skills and working experience, giving birth to an unskilled workforce,
and by extension, higher youth unemployment rates.

These days, people in some countries are living in a "throw-away" society, which means people use things
for a short time and then throw them away. What are the causes, and what are the consequences?

44
In modern society, people’s lifestyles have changed radically compared to the past. One of the most notable
developments has been in consumption, where many individuals are disposing of items they buy briefly after
the purchase. This trend can be attributed to the waning quality of most products manufactured today. It may
lead to dire repercussions on the environment and wildlife in the future.
The “throw-away” culture that is prevalent in the world stems from the shift away from quality in
manufacturing. As companies try to maximize profits by sourcing cheaper materials, the integrity of things
being made has been compromised. This is compounded by the fact that manufacturers are offshoring
production to countries where labor is cheap but the skill level is seriously lacking. Consequently, most of the
merchandise produced today does not last long, and consumers have to replace it more often. The fashion
industry is a telling example of this situation. The clothing market is flooded with items manufactured in third-
world countries, which are generally flimsy and made of cheap materials. As a result, while this type of apparel
is offered at a very accessible price point, it wears out much faster and thus is gotten rid of more quickly.
I am convinced that the habit of throwing away things may seriously jeopardize/disrupt/fracture the delicate
balance of the ecosystem. As people discard items that they no longer have any use for, landfill sites are taking
up space on the planet. The implication of this is that (~ As a result) environmental problems such as air
pollution or water contamination may deteriorate. Furthermore, more species may be driven to the brink of
extinction as landfill deprives them of their natural habitat. Ultimately, it is mankind who will have to face the
consequences of nature being devastated, which in this case stems from their very consumption habits.
In conclusion, the growing trend towards getting rid of things more frequently can be ascribed to the fact that
product quality has been in decline, and this may pose an imminent threat not only to nature but also to humans
themselves.

Together with ever-growing purchasing power and waste generation, some people believe that we have evolved
into a throw-away society. In my view, consumerism is the primary culprit behind this trend, and it might lead
to irreparable (=irreversible) environmental damage. (sự phá hủy môi trường ko thể sửa đc)
To begin with, there are a number of ways in which consumerism is contributing to this phenomenon. In an
attempt to boost consumer purchasing, a wide range of goods, such as clothes or tech items, have been made
increasingly affordable. Such availability of low-priced products has made consumers willing to buy brand-new
models and discard used yet still functional items (vứt những món đồ cũ nhưng còn dùng được) without a
second thought. Disposable discount products are usually of low quality and durability (chất lượng và độ bền
kém) with a life cycle of less than six months, contributing to deleterious (harmful) waste accumulation.
The environmental footprint (negative impacts on the environment) associated with this trend is worryingly
hìgh. For instance, certain types of waste, such as plastic or chemical waste, tend to produce toxic substances or
gases when burned, causing air pollution. Overloaded landfills (bãi rác quá tải) and growing amounts of waste
dumped into oceans also result in environmental degradation. Consequently, if our current rate of consumption
continues, natural resources might soon be depleted (=exhausted, cạn kiệt). Such a scenario might not only
impact the ecosystem but also lead to a production crisis, creating undesired economic and social problems on a
larger cross-border scale.
In conclusion, our throw-away culture, underpinned (=supported) by unbridled (=uncontrolled) consumerism,
has become a leading offender in damaging the environment. My view is that certain measures need to be taken
to reverse such a trend before environmental and social repercussions (= consequences) are irreversible.

45
In the modern world, it is no longer necessary to use animals as food or to use animal products for, for
example, clothing and medicines. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is a widely held belief that people in the modern world no longer have a need for eating meat or consuming
animal products, such as fashion items and medicines. I totally agree with this opinion, as we are now able to
live comfortable lives without slaughtering animals.
There are two major reasons why we no longer need to use animals as food. Abstaining from (kiêng khem, tiết
chế) animal-based foods, high in fat and cholesterol, means a reduced risk of cardiovascular diseases (bệnh tim
mạch) and diabetes, bringing enormous health benefits. Such a meatless diet can also ensure people's intake of
sufficient nutrients since there is now a wide range of alternatives to meat (các sản phẩm thay thế thịt). Whole
foods (*) and plant-based foods are proven to be as nutritious as animal meat. For example, people could use
pulses (các loại đậu hạt) as a good source of protein, eliminating the need for beef in their daily meals.
Other animal products, such as clothing and medicines, are also largely unnecessary in today's developed world.
Whereas in the past animal skin and fur were essential in order to make clothes, this is no longer the case today
since the textile industry (ngành công nghiệp dệt may) has made significant leaps, allowing synthetic fabric (sợi
tổng hợp) such as polyester to be mass produced to accommodate the ever-increasing demand (thích ứng vs nhu
cầu ngày càng tăng). The same logic should also be applied to medicines derived from (có nguồn gốc từ)
animals. Advanced technology in medicine, together with a wide variety of plant-based supplements, could
ultimately see the removal of animal products in medicine, provided that such a trend is incentivized by
government initiatives. (được khích lệ bởi các chính sách, sáng kiến mới của chính phủ)
In conclusion, it is justifiable to say that animals should not be killed for any reason since people now have a
range of alternatives to animal-based products, ensuring a comfortable and convenient life without causing
suffering to animals.

Animal species are becoming extinct due to human activities on land and in the sea. What are the reasons
and solutions?
In light of (~ because of) the inexorable growth of the global population and with its rapid economic
development, it is true that humans are posing an imminent threat to the survival of animals. In this essay, I am
going to demonstrate that the extinction of animals can be attributed to the expansion of cities and
manufacturing activities, and suggest some viable solutions to conserve wildlife.
There are two main ways in which humans are contributing to the disappearance of animals. First, as the global
population rises at an alarming rate, there is an urgent need to expand territories and build new cities. The
urbanization and, by extension, mass deforestation, have deprived various species of their natural habitat.
Consequently, animals that cannot adapt to/ acclimate to new living environments are likely to become extinct/
decrease in numbers. Another culprit of the extinction of animals is industrialization. As factories/
manufacturing plants proliferate, an enormous amount of effluents/ chemicals/ toxic waste is discharged into
water sources, directly threatening the lives of marine life. Formosa perfectly exemplifies this dire (~serious)
situation. The toxic waste released from the company's steel plant has triggered the death of countless fish in the
sea in Central Vietnam.
In order to mitigate/ alleviate/ ameliorate/ remedy the aforementioned situation, states should adopt a number of
steps. One of these is for local authorities to build shelters for endangered species. This would help ensure
biodiversity in areas where animals are vulnerable to habitat loss. Another solution could be to impose/
administer more stringent regulations on manufacturing companies in terms of waste treatment. For example,
there should be a limit/ cap on the amount of waste that a factory can discharge, and chemicals must undergo/

46
be subjected to a rigorous treatment process to ensure that all pollutants are removed. The implication of this is
that (As a result...) rivers and oceans would become uninhabitable for fish and other forms of marine life.
In conclusion, there are numerous ways in which mankind is endangering the security of animals, and the
proposed steps must be implemented in order to protect these species.

In some countries, children are becoming overweight and unhealthy. Some people think that the
government should be responsible for solving this problem. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is true that children in some parts of the world are becoming obese and unhealthy. I agree with the role of the
government in resolving this vexing issue. However, I also believe that the role of parenting and school settings
should be emphasized.
Childhood obesity and children’s health problems should be partly blamed on the authorities. We can hardly
deny the fact that overweight children are at high risk of being vulnerable to numerous serious diseases, such as
diabetes and hypertension, which poses a dire threat to the national growth of any country, as they are the
future’s human resources. As a result, the authority should be accountable for mitigating this problem. Take
China as a good example, the governing body has been taking action to lower the obesity rate among children
by organizing boot camps where children are physically trained to lose weight and take up daily healthy habits.
This is because China’s political activists are scared of the scenario that these overweight children will not be
able to meet the physical demands to join the army.x
Besides the governmental role, parents and schools are also liable for their children’s good health. Regarding
the former, working parents nowadays tend to devote virtually their whole time to working in order to ensure
material well-being, which means that they may spend less time carefully taking care of their children’s diet.
Therefore, without supervision, children might eat unhealthy food or lead a sedentary lifestyle. This explains
why close parental care and control are crucial in ensuring children’s balanced diet and healthy life. In terms of
the role of education in teaching children about healthy living, some schools are inclined to place emphasis on
theoretical subjects, such as math and literature, and neglect the importance of physical education, which
reduces their students’ workout frequency. School efforts to promote a healthy diet and engage students in
physical exercise are invaluable in tackling the problem of childhood obesity.
In conclusion, the government, parents, and schools should all shoulder the responsibility for protecting their
children from obesity and unhealthy lifestyles.

Most large companies nowadays operate multinationally. To what extent do multinational companies
have responsibility toward the local communities in which they operate?
International companies' responsibility toward local communities at their operation sites is deemed
unquestionable in the modern world. These enterprises should be under an utmost obligation to local residents
who are affected by their operation in various ways.
Firstly, these transnational corporations are required to be responsible for protecting the environment of their
operational sites. The massive production process of these foreign companies would dispose of a tremendous
amount of toxins and hazardous chemical wastes into the environment, seriously polluting water, soil, and air in
the surrounding areas. For causing this problem, they should owe a duty to minimize the volume of harmful
discharges by installing a waste treatment system and fully complying with local environmental protection laws.
Without such a commitment, irreversible environmental degradation and disasters would occur and wreak
havoc on local residents' lives. Such a scenario has been proved through the catastrophe of fish deaths and water

47
contamination in the north of Vietnam as a consequence of a foreign steel company's reckless discharging of
raw wastes into the sea.
Another unavoidable obligation falling on international conglomerates is providing employment and building
capacity for local citizens. In a majority of cases, countries receiving foreign investments are those with lower
educational and technological standards and are in need of expertise exchange from these competent enterprises
to develop. Providing jobs for thousands of local residents and training some of them to become high-quality
engineers, Samsung Factory, located in the North of Vietnam, serves as an exemplary multinational entity that
correlates development with higher chances for employment opportunities and technology exchange for the
local countries.
The aforementioned arguments illustrate the view that cross-border corporations should hold themselves
accountable for environmental protection and workforce development in their countries of presence to the
fullest.

People living in large cities face several problems. What are these problems? Should governments
encourage people to move to smaller towns?
The problems associated with city life are a major topic of concern in modern society. I believe that traffic
congestion and air pollution are two of the greatest issues, and it is imperative that the authorities motivate
citizens to move to suburban areas and satellite cities.
People living in metropolises often have to deal with traffic jams and low air quality. The former problem is
caused by a high traffic density, which results from a large number of private vehicles. In Hanoi, for example,
there are millions of motorbikes and cars, which leads to the issue that traffic jams occur every day in peak
hours. The latter problem is the consequence of a great amount of industrial fumes produced by factories
located in the city. A clear illustration of this is the case of Vinataba tobacco manufacturing sites in Hai Phong
City, in which ten thousand citizens are suffering from a variety of respiratory problems related to air
contamination.
However, I am of the opinion that citizens should be encouraged to relocate to the suburbs and satellite cities,
which can solve the two above-mentioned problems simultaneously. If people move away from metropolises,
the population density in these cities is likely to decrease, leading to a lower number of private vehicles. This
means that traffic congestion may be properly addressed. Additionally, urban-rural migration can also result in
the relocation of manufacturing plants from city centres to the outskirts, because these plants may move along
with their workers to the new places. The air quality in the city, therefore, may be improved.
In conclusion, I am firmly convinced that amongst the most prevalent problems that city dwellers often face are
traffic congestion and the degradation of air quality. To resolve these matters, people should be motivated to
migrate to the outskirts and satellite towns.

Some people say that young people can learn useful skills by playing electronic and computer games.
Others say that young people who play electronic and computer games are wasting their time. Discuss
both views and give your own opinions.
An intense debate about the effects of electronic and computer games on youngsters has provoked (kích động) a
wide range of mixed opinions (ý kiến khác nhau). While other people consider playing games on the computer a
waste of time, I completely oppose this misbelief.
It is a fallacy to claim that gaming is a time waste. Advocates of such a view would argue that young students
could easily allocate far more hours to enjoy online games and less time for study, hence their poor academic

48
performance. However, this problem could be resolved due to parental proper guidance and supervision of their
children’s leisure time spent on games. (sự hướng dẫn và giám sát phù hợp của bố mẹ) Furthermore, no one can
refuse the widely held belief that computer-based games are one of the most effective means of entertainment,
which could enable gamers, especially young people who have to bear a great amount of pressure from work
and study on a daily basis, to relieve stress.
On the other hand, I endorse the perception that audiovisual games are a powerful tool from which the young
can learn countless life essential skills. It is obvious that many well-designed video games help young gamers
improve their cognitive skills (kĩ năng nhận thức), such as logical thinking and problem solving. For example,
the game called League of Legends requires players to anticipate consequences (dự đoán ~), negotiate with
other players (đàm phán), and make decisions in order to win. By playing these games, teenagers can gradually
improve such crucial skills. Another prowess (great ability) that can be gained by computer playing is
communication ability, since children engaged in war simulation games (games mô phỏng chiến tranh) like
StarCraft or Half Life are normally required to communicate well with their team members for concerted
actions (phối hợp hành động) to secure their team victory.
In conclusion, I strongly disagree with the misconception that spending time on electronic simulation games is a
waste of time and highlight (nhấn mạnh) the undeniable fact that not only is gaming an effective medium (tool)
of entertainment, it also provides young players with a myriad of useful skills.

Some people think that it is good for a country's culture to import foreign movies and TV programmes.
Others think that it is better to produce these locally. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
People have divided opinions about whether it is better for a country to purchase foreign movies or to create
domestic ones. While importing movies from other countries can have some advantages, I would argue that
producing local movies is a much better option.
On the one hand, there are some clear benefits of buying movies from other countries. Firstly, when a country
imports movies that are produced overseas, it can help its people learn about other cultures in a much easier and
more effective way, thus enhancing their cultural understanding without the need for exorbitant foreign trips.
Secondly, individuals can learn from the decent practices of other, more civilised societies and alter the way
they behave. For example, the habit of queuing is a desirable thing in many Western countries, and people from
Vietnam can learn and copy this action when watching foreign movies.
On the other hand, I believe it is better for countries to produce movies domestically for several reasons. The
first one is that movies made by local people would help to preserve the traditions and customs of their own
cultures. For instance, many Vietnamese TV programmes remind young generations of how people celebrate
the Lunar New Year, which is the most important public holiday in some Asian countries. If young people only
watch foreign movies, the traditional values might be gradually forgotten. Another reason is that the film
industry often creates jobs such as actors, directors, or cameramen, placing importance on the investment in
producing movies in order to provide more employment opportunities for local people.
In conclusion, while purchasing foreign movies is beneficial for a nation's culture to some extent, I am more
convinced that making local ones is a much better choice, given the benefits related to local employment and
culture preservation.

Some people think that it is good for a country's culture to import foreign movies and TV programmes.
Others think that it is better to produce these locally. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

49
There have been divided opinions regarding the merits of foreign movies and TV channels to the culture of a
country, as people believe domestic products would be better. From my perspective, both of those categories are
equally important.
On the one hand, it is reasonable to believe foreign films and TV telecasts can contribute to the cultural
diversity of a nation. Fascinating social norms and practices, such as public hugging, which is common in the
US, can follow the wave to other nations as Hollywood blockbusters (phim, truyện bom tấn) are enjoying
worldwide popularity. Such an ongoing phenomenon is believed to benefit the richness of the host country’s
traditional backgrounds. Moreover, the import of international movies and TV shows could perfect the flaws of
the country’s set of beliefs. In Vietnam, for example, the ceremony of funerals is often perpetuated (continued)
with depraved customs (hủ tục) such as gambling and drinking. Since the arrival of TV shows from more
developed nations, which trigger a new and civilized way of thinking, such practices have been gradually
abandoned. (stopped)
On the other hand, it seems to me that producing local movies and TV programs has the same importance.
Citizens of a country would be able to acquire knowledge about their own culture. Apparently, profound
insights into traditional values can be vividly conveyed in cinemas and in the media if the content is made by
local people. The second point to be considered is that this way can relieve the worry of cultural assimilation
(sự hoà tan văn hoá), which has emerged as a detriment to (a threat to) the existence of a country’s traditional
beliefs and customs. In fact, if exotic practices are absorbed thoughtlessly, it might lead to the oblivion (sự lãng
quên) of the long-standing ethics, which emphasizes the necessity for domestic products.
In conclusion, I would argue that both types of films and TV telecasts play an equal role in a country’s culture.

Consumers are now faced with an increasing number of advertisements from competing companies. How
are consumers affected by advertisements? (problems?) How can the government help protect
consumers? (solutions?)
In the light of fiercer competition among companies, consumers today are bombarded with a barrage of
advertisements from businesses trying to promote their products to the general public. In this essay, I will
demonstrate how excessive exposure to advertising may trigger impulse buying before suggesting some of the
ways in which governments can mitigate the detrimental impacts of advertising.
The harm that advertisements may cause is definite. The allure of the vivid graphics often found in adverts may
encourage customers to purchase the products being promoted, even when they have no real need for them. This
is reinforced by celebrity endorsements, which can have a dramatic influence on people wanting to imitate their
idols. As a consequence, people who watch too many advertisements may purchase items that do not live up to
their expectations, resulting in a waste of money. The iPhone covers being sold in Vietnam perfectly exemplify
this situation. Their adverts, which feature prominent pop stars, are positioned on the side panels of most
websites in Vietnam. People who visit these pages often cannot resist the urge to replace their phone covers
with the latest models and waste money on a product that is of little value to them.
In order to help consumers make more informed purchasing decisions, governments can adopt some of the
following solutions. First and foremost, they need to exercise censorship on all advertisements. Rigorous
content checks must be carried out prior to the publishing of a commercial to ensure the description of a product
accurately reflects its actual quality. In addition, there should be a limit on the number of platforms on which a
company is permitted to market its products. This would effectively safeguard consumers against information
overload and help them avoid making wasteful purchases.

50
In conclusion, people who view too many advertisements may be lured into buying unnecessary items, and the
proposed steps should be taken to reduce this influence of advertising.

Recent studies have suggested that children watch much more television than they did in the past and
spend less time on active and creative activities. What are the reasons, and what measures should be
taken to encourage children to spend more time on active or creative things?
In the modern age, television programs have become an indispensable part of the lives of the modern youth;
however, they are showing an alarming tendency to forsake (give up, abandon) dynamic and creative activities.
For this phenomenon, several reasons are being put on the table, and feasible measures are recommended to be
taken promptly.
(Topic Sentence 1) There are two factors acting as the main culprits behind the current trend. (Reason 1). First
and foremost, it is solely due to the lack of parental care that triggers the unhealthy habit of spending a large
amount of time on television. (Support for Reason 1). Nowadays, parents find themselves struggling to maintain
such a basic role as child nurturers. The hectic schedule at work and wearying daily house chores have worn
them down significantly, especially for dual-earner couples, and thus, children are allowed to watch TV to make
up for time spent with parents. (Reason 2) Second, the knowledge-centered education has partially restrained
children from retaining a balanced timetable for their well-rounded growth. (Support for Reason 2). Currently,
the educational system solely emphasizes lessons that require students to idly sit and learn by heart theoretical
knowledge. Consequently, time allocated for physical activities and encouragement for unconventional thinking
is substantially restricted.
Urgent actions are called for to put a halt to (put a stop to) the trend of excessive television watching among
children. (Solution 1) One is that campaigns should be intensified to raise awareness of effective parenting.
(Support for Solution 1). Despite tight schedules, as long as reasonable time allocation is taken into
consideration, a family can actively control their family time and kids can be reared (cared) properly. (Solution
2) The second proposal suggests that school time should be shortened and more appropriate activities should be
introduced to fellow students. (Support for Solution 2) For example, assisting and guiding children to form
clubs suitable to their preferences can help them improve soft skills while developing distinctive potential.
To conclude, it is my opinion that insufficient parental care (thiếu sự quan tâm của bố mẹ) and wrong
educational focus have made it difficult for children to lead a healthy life. (Tóm lại câu hỏi 1). Therefore,
measures promoting effective parenting and extra-curricular activities should be applied to reverse the trend.
(Tóm lại câu hỏi 2)

Some people believe that reading stories from a book is better than watching TV or playing computer
games for children. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
What children should or should not do in their free time has been a fiercely debated topic. Some people argue
that (fictional) literature/ books are more wholesome for children than letting them sit in front of the television
or a computer screen. While reading is indeed an immensely educational activity, I believe watching television
or gaming also offers unique benefits to youngsters.
On the one hand, reading is indeed better than watching television or gaming in some regards/ aspects/ facets.
For one, it is a boon to learning and developing creativity. When children immerse themselves in fictional
stories, for example, they have to visualize and use their imagination to make sense of the details in the book.
[compare with watching TV/ gaming] By contrast, television and games seem like pure entertainment and offer
little in the way of personal development. Another argument in favor of reading is that it is relatively harmless/

51
benign. In comparison, prolonged exposure to a digital screen has been proven to impair vision, not to mention
the excessive violence and nudity that are rampant in many TV shows and video games nowadays, which could
incite negative behaviors in young viewers, such as aggression or premature curiosity about sex.
However, to say that reading stories from books is altogether better than watching TV or playing computer
games is not necessarily a fair comparison. Many TV shows are no less educational than books; some are even
more effective in conveying a moral lesson or describing a concept to children than their textual counterparts.
For example, the numerous series on Disney Channel have instilled in young viewers the world over positive
qualities and virtues that would otherwise be difficult to get across (communicate) with books. The same can
also be said about computer games. When children play games, they have the opportunity to improve a whole
host of skills and competencies, including strategic thinking, problem solving, teamwork, and even language,
and this would be unfeasible or even impossible when they read books.
In conclusion, there are distinctive advantages to reading, watching television, and playing electronic games,
and there is little point in weighing which activity offers greater benefits to children.

The news media have become too influential in people's lives today, and this is a negative development.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
People hold different views about the news media, as it has brought an immense amount of influence to people's
lives. Some claim that this might result in negative developments, and although I contend that the media should
be held accountable for this, I am more convinced that its benefits can never be overshadowed by its drawbacks.
There are several reasons that shed light on why the popularity of news media brings many disadvantages. In
order to draw attention from viewers, the news media occasionally distorts the truth by exaggerating the
problem. Thus, it causes misinformation and misunderstanding among people. Unquestionably, through
television, the media broadcasts a large number of films, including many with adult themes and violence, which
are unsuitable for children. By imitating the actions in these movies, children are profoundly influenced due to
their curiosity and innocence.
[One-idea para] Despite its many criticisms, there are more compelling reasons why I firmly believe that the
disadvantages can never outweigh the advantages. It is worth mentioning that with the ease of access to the
Internet, a tremendous amount of knowledge and information is now available to people, some of which is
provided by the media. For example, regarding the business aspect, if the latest information is not reported,
many businessmen could be facing an extremely high level of risk due to a lack of information. Meanwhile, it
also saves the lives of hundreds of people via weather forecasts. By accurately predicting and updating
information in a timely manner, the news media could minimize the number of casualties caused by natural
disasters and other phenomena.
Based on the above-mentioned facts, in spite of unwanted influences caused by the media, such as
misunderstanding and misinformation, I would contend that its role is indispensable since the media provides
people with a massive source of knowledge.

Some people say that advertising encourages us to buy things that we really do not need. Others say that
advertisements tell us about new products that may improve our lives. Discuss both views and give your
opinion.
Recently, commercial advertisements have bombarded (rai tham) a variety of television channels, newspapers,
magazines, and websites. While some claim that this trend helps popularize new goods that enhance people's

52
living standards, I would contend that the main result is that more unnecessary products are consumed by the
public.
There is a common fallacy that advertising is an important means to introduce new and invaluable products to
the public. People may argue that in the past, a number of world products had gained popularity thanks to
advertising, such as the success story of electronic cigarette advertisements in the early 2000s, which were
believed to have saved millions from tuberculosis and lung cancer. However, in more recent years, the market
has become saturated, leaving very little chance that one can invent a revolutionary product that changes
people's lives. Even when there are such life-changing inventions, it is still very unlikely that they can reach
their potential customers through advertising channels because these channels are now owned, controlled, and
dominated by conglomerates, which have no top priority other than promoting their own merchandise.
I believe the main purpose of most advertisements is to persuade customers to make a purchase regardless of
(despite) their true needs. To meet sales targets, large companies often exaggerate the usefulness of a small
feature of their products when advertising. For example, the latest Samsung mobile phone is no different from
its predecessor, except for a slightly faster processor, but Samsung marketers are skilful enough to convince
customers that their older phones are just obsolete, and that these devices must be upgraded to the latest version.
Some other companies, including Unilever, have hired celebrities to take part in advertisements to appeal to
customers who are fans of these famous people. All these advertising techniques may promote sales, but are far
from encouraging customers to purchase the goods they truly need.
In conclusion, all the existing data provide a concrete foundation that advertising has been used as an important
selling tool of many businesses, whose primary goal is profit, rather than meeting customers' needs.

The aging population is good for business, the economy, and society. Others disagree. Discuss both views
and give your opinion.
It is believed that an aging population not only benefits companies and the economy but also society. While this
thinking may be valid to a certain extent, I would argue that the trend towards an older population is likely to
have dire repercussions on the world.
It is understandable why some people subscribe to the view that an aging population can be advantageous. On
the societal level, an aging population, which is synonymous with longer average life expectancy, may be
interpreted as an improvement in public health. As advancements in medical treatment enable people to ward
off serious diseases, they can now live longer lives, which could be obviously considered a positive
development / it is easy to see how this can be a good thing. At the same time, an increase in the number of
elderly people may result in a higher demand for products and services, which could present a lucrative
opportunity for businesses and act as a boost for the economy. For example, an aging population may stimulate
demand for leisure services that cater to retirees, such as nursing homes or resorts. A growth in this sector is
certain to create a great number of jobs, which would be of direct benefit not only to business entities and the
economy but also to local communities.
However, despite the aforementioned benefits, I side with the view that an aging population is disadvantageous.
As more people become older and retire, the number of working adults also shrinks. This could mean a
reduction in the state budget, as there would be fewer people paying taxes. The implication is that the
government would have less funding to allocate to social infrastructures while having to spend more on welfare
to support people who have retired. In addition, the fact that people are becoming older may put more financial
burden on younger family members. This is especially the case in developing countries, where pensions are

53
usually not sufficient to cover daily living expenses for the old, which means they have to rely on their family
for support.
In conclusion, while people living longer lives may seem like a positive trend, I am convinced that it exerts
many detrimental impacts on both the economy and society.

Many people think there is an increase in antisocial behavior and a lack of respect for others. What do
you think are the causes of this, and what can be done about that? (Band 8.5 8999)
The escalation of anti-social conduct and disregard for others has become a prevalent issue in today’s world.
This essay will delve into the underlying causes of this phenomenon before proposing some viable solutions to
improve the situation.
The increase in anti-social behavior and lack of respect for others is largely attributed to the erosion of
communal values and the pervasive influence of technology. Regarding the former, as societies become more
individualistic, people may feel isolated and develop a survivalist mentality, prioritizing their own needs above
those of others. This shift in priorities often leads to a lack of empathy, fostering anti-social tendencies and
disrespect for fellow citizens. This is compounded by the frequent exposure to aggressive online interactions,
which can desensitize one to the feelings of others, resulting in a callous disregard for the well-being and
opinions of other individuals.
To combat the rise in anti-social behavior and lack of respect for others, the following steps should be taken.
First, it is imperative to promote a greater sense of community and foster empathy within society. This can be
done through such initiatives as neighborhood outreach programs, intergenerational activities, and volunteer
opportunities, which can help bridge the gap between individuals and facilitate a deeper understanding of
diverse perspectives. In tandem with this, the responsible use of technology and social media should be
emphasized through education. Schools can incorporate digital citizenship and empathy training into their
curricula, teaching students the importance of treating others with respect both online and offline. Such a two-
pronged approach could go a long way towards cultivating a sense of belonging and mutual respect in the
general population.
To summarize, what seems to be at the core of the rise in anti-social conduct and disregard for others is the
pervasive influence of technology and the deterioration of traditional values. By fostering a sense of community
and promoting responsible technological use, society can work towards reversing this troubling trend.

The best way for a country to prepare for the future is to invest more resources in its young people. To
what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? (Band 9)
It is proposed that countries should focus on investing in their young generations to best prepare for the future.
While investment in young people is necessary, it is not sufficient on its own and should be complemented by
other measures.
Investing in the younger generation is irrefutably of paramount importance for shaping a nation's future. The
logic is straightforward: today's youth are tomorrow's leaders, innovators, and decision-makers, so prioritizing
their education and well-being would lay the groundwork for a society that values critical thinking,
independence, and innovation. For example, improving educational resources can give rise to a more
knowledgeable and skilful generation, capable of driving social progress and breakthroughs.
However, focusing on young people would only work if other aspects of society were given priority as well.
Technological development is clearly an area that cannot be overlooked. Given the current fast-paced, tech-
driven world, it is safe to say that a country would lag far behind its global counterparts if it turned a blind eye

54
to advancing its technologies. By the same token, investing in infrastructure is vital. The current state of public
services, such as healthcare and transportation, directly affects citizens' quality of life. The consequences of
ignoring the deterioration of these essential services could be widespread dissatisfaction and unrest, ultimately
hindering a nation's development.
To summarize, I am convinced that directing more resources towards today's young generation, albeit crucial
for the future prospects of a nation, is simply not enough. A more comprehensive approach would combine this
focus with strategic investments in technology and infrastructure, ensuring a well-rounded foundation for a
country's future prosperity.

Many customs and traditional ways of behavior are no longer relevant to modern life and are not worth
keeping. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
(Band 8.5 8999) In the rapidly evolving landscape of modern life, the relevance of many traditional customs
and behaviors is frequently questioned. While there are arguments for discarding some of these practices, I
believe that they still hold value and can be adapted to contemporary life.
Advocates for doing away with certain traditions often argue that they are outdated and no longer fit into the
fast-paced, technologically advanced world we live in. For example, customs like lengthy traditional marriage
ceremonies can seem impractical in today's time-constrained society. People argue that these prolonged events
are not only expensive but also an inefficient use of time that could be better spent on work or personal
development. By the same token, traditional ways of behavior, such as formal dining etiquette, can appear
redundant in the more casual, fast-paced dining culture of today. In fast-food joints and informal gatherings,
these protocols can seem out of place, leading some to question their relevance.
However, this viewpoint overlooks the cultural significance and the sense of identity that these customs and
behaviors provide. Traditional ceremonies, like marriage rituals, are often deeply rooted in a society's history
and can strengthen community bonds and family ties. These events are not just about the pomp and
circumstance but about the transfer of cultural values and the celebration of heritage. Likewise, behaviors like
formal dining etiquette are about more than just which fork to use; they teach respect, discipline, and
mindfulness in social settings.
The key lies not in discarding these traditional practices but in adapting them to fit our modern lifestyles. This
adaptation does not mean a complete overhaul but a thoughtful modification. For instance, traditional marriage
ceremonies can be condensed to suit time constraints while preserving essential cultural elements. Dining
etiquette can be taught in a way that is relevant to modern dining scenarios, emphasizing respect and
mindfulness over rigid rules.
In conclusion, while it is true that the pace and nature of modern life differ greatly from the past, this does not
really render traditional customs and behaviors obsolete. Instead, by adapting these practices to modern
contexts, we can preserve our cultural heritage and the lessons they offer while remaining relevant and practical
in today's world.

In today's rapidly evolving world, the relevance of many age-old customs and traditional behaviors is
increasingly questioned. Whilst some of these traditional practices conflict with modern values and should thus
be marginalized, I would argue that there are still many others that are worth preserving.
Admittedly, several traditions seem to be incompatible with contemporary social norms and human rights
perspectives. Practices like whole-body tattooing or wrapping feet to keep them small, once symbols of beauty
or status, now seem archaic and often infringe on personal well-being. By the same token, customs such as rings

55
around necks to elongate them, or the more severe practices of female and male circumcision, are being
scrutinized for their health risks and ethical implications. These customs often clash with the modern
understanding of human rights and bodily autonomy. Furthermore, certain traditional punishments, considered
cruel and unusual by today's standards, have no place in a society that values justice and human dignity.
However, there are numerous traditions that undeniably enrich modern life and should be preserved. Traditional
holidays and festivals, for instance, play a crucial role in maintaining cultural heritage and fostering community
spirit. They offer a chance to celebrate shared histories and create a sense of belonging, which is of paramount
importance in our increasingly globalized world. Additionally, the importance of family values - such as respect
for older people - remains as relevant today as ever. These traditions provide a moral compass and a sense of
continuity, guiding individuals in their personal and social interactions.
In conclusion, while certain old customs are at odds with contemporary values and can be justifiably set aside,
others continue to offer significant benefits. It is crucial to critically evaluate each tradition, discarding those
that are harmful or irrelevant, while embracing and adapting those that positively contribute to modern society.
This selective preservation ensures that valuable cultural practices are maintained, enhancing our lives while
respecting the progress and ethos of the modern world.

With the growing population in cities, more and more people live in homes with small or no outdoor
areas. Is it a positive or a negative development?
The burgeoning population in urban areas has led to a significant shift in living conditions, most notably the
shrinking or complete absence of outdoor spaces in homes. This trend, while perhaps a necessary adaptation to
urban overcrowding, represents a predominantly negative development.
To begin with, the lack of outdoor areas in city dwellings adversely impacts physical health. Historically, homes
with yards or gardens provided a natural space for physical activities. The absence of these spaces forces
residents, particularly children, to seek alternative venues, which are often insufficient or nonexistent in densely
populated areas. Not only does this limitation reduce opportunities for exercise, but it also increases the risk of
health issues like obesity and heart disease.
The psychological effects of limited outdoor access are also pronounced. Outdoor spaces offer a respite from
the confines of indoor living, contributing to mental well-being. Numerous scientific studies have indicated that
exposure to green space significantly reduces stress and improves mood. In contrast, the absence of such spaces
can lead to feelings of claustrophobia and increased anxiety.
Worse still, the decline in outdoor areas can limit social interactions. Gardens, porches, and yards have
traditionally served as communal spaces where neighbors can interact. This social aspect is diminished in high-
density urban living, often leading to a sense of isolation. In comparison, suburban or rural communities with
more outdoor space tend to have stronger communal ties, as evidenced by various sociological research.
In conclusion, the trend of diminishing outdoor spaces in urban homes is largely a negative development. The
consequences on physical health, mental well-being, and social interactions are too great to ignore. Urban
planning should strive to incorporate green spaces and communal outdoor areas to mitigate these issues,
ensuring a healthier, more balanced urban living experience.

People should be able to keep all the money they earn. They should not pay tax to the state. To what
extent do you agree or disagree?
One school of thought holds that individuals should retain every penny they earn without contributing to state
taxes. In this essay, however, I will challenge this thinking.

56
Granted, advocates for tax-free income might argue that people work hard for their money and thus deserve to
keep it in its entirety. They believe that individuals could better manage their finances without the government's
intervention, leading to more personal financial freedom and responsibility. Moreover, this perspective often
stems from a distrust of government efficiency and skepticism about the effective use of tax revenue.
Proponents assert that eliminating taxes could stimulate economic growth, as people would have more
disposable income to invest and spend, thereby boosting local businesses and entrepreneurship.
However, this viewpoint overlooks the critical role that taxation plays in society. Taxes are not merely a
financial burden; they are the lifeblood of communal development and welfare. For instance, the funding for
public infrastructure - roads, schools, hospitals - largely comes from taxes. Without this revenue, these essential
services would deteriorate or become inaccessible to those who cannot afford private alternatives. Consider a
world without public education. Only the wealthy would be able to afford quality education, widening the gap
between the rich and the poor and undermining the principle of equal opportunity.
Furthermore, taxation supports systems that indirectly benefit all, including those who are financially well-off.
A well-educated workforce, maintained through tax-funded education, is crucial for businesses seeking skilled
employees. By the same token, public healthcare, supported by taxes, ensures a healthy population, reducing the
burden on employers regarding healthcare costs and improving overall productivity. Thus, while taxation might
seem an immediate financial loss, it is an investment in a stable, functioning society that benefits everyone in
the long run.
In conclusion, while the idea of keeping all one's earnings is superficially appealing, it fails to consider the
broader implications for society. Taxation, despite its immediate financial impact, is essential for maintaining
and developing public services and infrastructure. It is a cornerstone of a balanced, equitable society where the
collective good is as important as individual financial success.

When asked to choose between a life without work and working most of the time, people would always
choose not to work. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
It is often believed that if people could ever choose between working and living a life without work, they would
always gravitate towards the latter. While this might be the answer for a number of individuals, I would argue
that those who find meaning in what they do would still choose to work.
On the one hand, there exists a segment of the population that would opt out of work if circumstances allowed.
The freedom to pursue personal interests without the constraints of a job is highly attractive for many. People
who may not find satisfaction or purpose in their work, or those who view it solely as a means to financial
security, might prefer a lifestyle that allows them to enjoy hobbies, travel, or spend time with family and friends
without the obligations of employment. Additionally, individuals who experience high stress or burnout in their
jobs may view a life without work as a pathway to better mental and emotional well-being.
However, I would contend that choosing a life without work is not a universal answer for everyone. For many,
work provides a sense of structure, identity, and achievement that is difficult to replicate elsewhere. Meaningful
work, especially in fields that align with personal interests or values, often gives individuals a sense of purpose
and contribution. For example, professionals in healthcare or education frequently report feeling a strong sense
of accomplishment and fulfillment from helping others. Even those in less traditionally "rewarding" jobs often
find satisfaction in personal growth, teamwork, and achieving goals. Work also fosters social connections,
routine, and a sense of belonging that can be hard to replace in a life without structured activity.

57
In conclusion, while some people might prefer a life without work, many find purpose, satisfaction, and identity
in their jobs. Rather than a clear preference for a work-free life, the decision ultimately depends on individual
values and how one perceives the role of work in personal fulfillment.

Some people think that young people should be required to do unpaid work helping people in the
community. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?
The idea of requiring young people to perform unpaid community service has gained traction in some circles.
However, I believe that the potential disadvantages of such mandatory programs significantly outweigh the
benefits.
Advocates for mandatory community service often highlight two main benefits. Firstly, they argue that it fosters
a sense of civic responsibility and encourages young people to become active, engaged citizens. By contributing
to their communities, young people can develop a deeper understanding of social issues and a greater
appreciation for the needs of others. Proponents also claim that such programs provide valuable work
experience, helping young people develop skills and explore potential career paths. For example, volunteering
at a local hospital could expose a young person to the medical field, potentially sparking an interest in a
healthcare career.
However, I am convinced that these benefits are overshadowed by significant drawbacks. One major concern
relates to the potential for exploiting young people's labor. Requiring unpaid work, even for a good cause, sets a
dangerous precedent, potentially normalizing unpaid or underpaid labor practices. Worse still, a mandatory
approach can breed resentment and undermine the intrinsic motivation to volunteer, potentially creating a
negative association with community service. Furthermore, such mandates can disproportionately affect young
people from disadvantaged backgrounds who may need to work paid jobs to support themselves or their
families. For instance, a student from a low-income family might need to work a part-time job to cover their
expenses, leaving them with little time or energy for mandatory unpaid work.
In conclusion, while the goals of fostering civic responsibility and providing work experience are laudable, I
would contend that mandating unpaid community work for young people can do more harm than good. It
undermines the intrinsic value of volunteering, raises ethical concerns about exploitation, and potentially
exacerbates existing inequalities.

More and more people today are spending large amounts of money on their complexions in order to look
younger. Why do people want to look younger? Do you think this is a positive or negative development?
More and more individuals today are investing substantial sums in products and procedures designed to
maintain a youthful complexion and combat the visible signs of aging. This essay will explore the underlying
motivations driving this trend and argue that it represents an overwhelmingly negative development.
The growing preoccupation with looking younger can be attributed to two main factors. First, societal emphasis
on youthfulness, particularly for women, creates immense pressure to conform to narrow and often unattainable
beauty ideals. The media, advertising, and entertainment industries perpetuate these standards, portraying aging
as something to be feared and avoided. For instance, anti-aging creams are often marketed with promises of
reversing time, while the media frequently showcases celebrities who appear to defy the aging process, often
through cosmetic interventions. Moreover, in many cultures, a youthful appearance is associated with vitality,
attractiveness, and even professional success. This can lead individuals to believe that looking younger will
enhance their social standing and career prospects, particularly in industries where appearance is highly valued.

58
While it is understandable to want to feel confident and attractive, the broader societal consequences of this
trend are troubling. Primarily, it fosters a culture of insecurity and dissatisfaction with the natural aging process,
leading individuals to view normal physical changes as flaws to be corrected. This pressure often leads to
unhealthy spending habits, with individuals prioritizing costly treatments over more meaningful investments,
such as education or health. For example, people may undergo frequent and expensive procedures, such as
Botox or facelifts, even when they cannot afford them, potentially leading to financial strain. Worse still, this
focus on external appearance often overshadows more important aspects of well-being, such as mental health,
relationships, and personal growth. A society that values superficial qualities over intrinsic traits risks
promoting shallow ideals.
In conclusion, the increasing fixation on maintaining a youthful complexion is driven by societal pressures and
unrealistic beauty standards, heavily promoted by various industries. This trend is overwhelmingly negative,
fostering insecurity, unsustainable spending, and a distorted perception of self-worth.

59