FESTIVALS

Most people have forgotten the meaning behind traditional or religious festivals; sduring
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 behaviour 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
knowledge of religious festivals’ deeper significance on 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.
 EXTREME SPORTS
Extreme sports such as sky diving and skiing are very dangerous and should be banned. To
what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?

In recent years, extreme sports have become increasingly popular, and some people argue that
governments should prohibit them. I completely disagree with the idea that these sports are too
dangerous, and I therefore believe that they should not be banned.
In my opinion, so-called extreme sports are not as dangerous as many people think. All sports
involve some element of risk, and there should always be clear regulations and safety procedures
to reduce the possibility of accidents. People who take part in extreme sports are usually required
to undergo appropriate training so that the dangers are minimised. For example, anyone who
wants to try skydiving will need to sign up for lessons with a registered club, and beginners are
not allowed to dive solo; they must be accompanied by an experienced professional. Finally, the
protective equipment and technology used in sports from motor racing to mountain climbing is
constantly improving safety.
While I support regulations and safety measures, I believe that it would be wrong, and almost
impossible, to ban extreme sports. In the first place, we should all be free to decide how we spend
our leisure time; as long as we understand the risks, I do not believe that politicians should stop
us from enjoying ourselves. However, an even stronger argument against such a ban would be the
difficulty of enforcing it. Many of the most risky sports, like base jumping or big wave surfing,
are practiced far away from the reach of any authorities. I cannot imagine the police being called
to stop people from parachuting off a mountain face or surfing on an isolated beach.
In conclusion, I would argue that people should be free to enjoy extreme sports as long as they
understand the risks and take the appropriate precautions.
 RESPONSIBILITIES OF BUSINESSES
As well as making money, businesses also have social responsibilities. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?

Businesses have always sought to make a profit, but it is becoming increasingly common to hear
people talk about the social obligations that companies have. I completely agree with the idea that
businesses should do more for society than simply make money.
On the one hand, I accept that businesses must make money in order to survive in a competitive
world. It seems logical that the priority of any company should be to cover its running costs, such
as employees’ wages and payments for buildings and utilities. On top of these costs, companies
also need to invest in improvements and innovations if they wish to remain successful. If a
company is unable to pay its bills or meet the changing needs of customers, any concerns about
social responsibilities become irrelevant. In other words, a company can only make a positive
contribution to society if it is in good financial health.
On the other hand, companies should not be run with the sole aim of maximising profit; they
have a wider role to play in society. One social obligation that owners and managers have is to
treat their employees well, rather than exploiting them. For example, they could pay a “living
wage” to ensure that workers have a good quality of life. I also like the idea that businesses could
use a proportion of their profits to support local charities, environmental projects or education
initiatives. Finally, instead of trying to minimise their tax payments by using accounting
loopholes, I believe that company bosses should be happy to contribute to society through the tax
system.
In conclusion, I believe that companies should place as much importance on their social
responsibilities as they do on their financial objectives.
 CLIMATE CHANGE
Some people think that instead of preventing climate change, we need to find a way to live
with it. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Climate change represents a major threat to life on Earth, but some people argue that we need to
accept it rather than try to stop it. I completely disagree with this opinion, because I believe that
we still have time to tackle this issue and reduce the human impact on the Earth's climate.
There are various measures that governments and individuals could take to prevent, or at least
mitigate, climate change. Governments could introduce laws to limit the carbon dioxide
emissions that lead to global warming. They could impose “green taxes” on drivers, airline
companies and other polluters, and they could invest in renewable energy production from solar,
wind or water power. As individuals, we should also try to limit our contribution to climate
change, by becoming more energy efficient, by flying less, and by using bicycles and public
transport. Furthermore, the public can affect the actions of governments by voting for politicians
who propose to tackle climate change, rather than for those who would prefer to ignore it.
If instead of taking the above measures we simply try to live with climate change, I believe that
the consequences will be disastrous. To give just one example, I am not optimistic that we would
be able to cope with even a small rise in sea levels. Millions of people would be displaced by
flooding, particularly in countries that do not have the means to safeguard low-lying areas. These
people would lose their homes and their jobs, and they would be forced to migrate to nearby
cities or perhaps to other countries. The potential for human suffering would be huge, and it is
likely that we would see outbreaks of disease and famine, as well as increased homelessness and
poverty.
 ONLINE NEWS
Although more and more people read news on the Internet, newspaper will remain the most
important source of news. Do you agree or disagree?

The Internet is beginning to rival newspapers as the best place to find information about what is
happening in the world. I believe that this trend will continue, and the Internet will soon be just as
important as the traditional ones.
On the one hand, I believe that newspapers will continue to be a vital source of information, even
in the Internet age. Firstly, newspapers are the most traditional means of communicating the
news, and not everyone wants to or is able to use the Internet instead. For example, old people or
those in rural areas might not have the ability to get online, while many of us simply prefer
newspapers even if we do have Internet access. Secondly, newspapers can be trusted as reliable
sources of news because they employ professional journalists and editors. Finally, many people
like the experience of holding and reading a paper rather than looking at a computer screen.
However, the Internet is likely to become just as popular as newspapers for a variety of reasons.
The main reason is that it allows us much faster access to news in real time and wherever we are,
on different gadgets and mobile devices. Another key benefit of online news compared to
newspapers is the ability to share articles, discuss them with other people, give our views, and
even contribute with our own updates on social media. For example, there has been an explosion
in the use of platforms like Twitter and YouTube where anyone can share their news and views.
A final point is that this source of news is less damaging to the environment.
In conclusion, I disagree with the view that newspapers will continue to be the main source of
news, because I believe that the Internet will soon be equally important.
 CRIMES
Some people who have been in prison become good citizens later, and it is often argued that
these are the best people to talk to teenagers about the dangers of committing a crime. To
what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is true that ex-prisoners can become normal, productive members of society. I completely agree
with the idea that allowing such people to speak to teenagers about their experiences is the best
way to discourage them from breaking the law.
In my opinion, teenagers are more likely to accept advice from someone who can speak from
experience. Reformed offenders can tell young people about how they became involved in crime,
the dangers of a criminal lifestyle, and what life in prison is really like. They can also dispel any
ideas that teenagers may have about criminals leading glamorous lives. While adolescents are
often indifferent to the guidance given by older people, I imagine that most of them would be
extremely keen to hear the stories of an ex¬offender. The vivid and perhaps shocking nature of
these stories is likely to have a powerful impact.
The alternatives to using reformed criminals to educate teenagers about crime would be much
less effective. One option would be for police officers to visit schools and talk to young people.
This could be useful in terms of informing teens about what happens to lawbreakers when they
are caught, but young people are often reluctant to take advice from figures of authority. A
second option would be for school teachers to speak to their students about crime, but I doubt that
students would see teachers as credible sources of information about this topic. Finally,
educational films might be informative, but there would be no opportunity for young people to
interact and ask questions.
In conclusion, I fully support the view that people who have turned their lives around after
serving a prison sentence could help to deter teenagers from committing crimes.
 OLD AND NEW
The older generations tend to have very traditional ideas about how people should live,
think and behave. However, some people believe that these ideas are not helpful in
preparing younger generations for modern life. To what extent do you agree or disagree
with this view?

It is true that many older people believe in traditional values that often seem incompatible with
the needs of younger people. While I agree that some traditional ideas are outdated, I believe that
others are still useful and should not be forgotten.
On the one hand, many of the ideas that elderly people have about life are becoming less relevant
for younger people. In the past, for example, people were advised to learn a profession and find a
secure job for life, but today’s workers expect much more variety and diversity from their
careers. At the same time, the ‘rules’ around relationships are being eroded as young adults make
their own choices about who and when to marry. But perhaps the greatest disparity between the
generations can be seen in their attitudes towards gender roles. The traditional roles of men and
women, as breadwinners and housewives, are no longer accepted as necessary or appropriate by
most younger people.
On the other hand, some traditional views and values are certainly applicable to the modern
world. For example, older generations attach great importance to working hard, doing one’s best,
and taking pride in one’s work, and these behaviours can surely benefit young people as they
enter today’s competitive job market. Other characteristics that are perhaps seen as traditional are
politeness and good manners. In our globalised world, young adults can expect to come into
contact with people from a huge variety of backgrounds, and it is more important than ever to
treat others with respect. Finally, I believe that young people would lead happier lives if they had
a more ‘old-fashioned’ sense of community and neighbourliness.
In conclusion, although the views of older people may sometimes seem unhelpful in today’s
world, we should not dismiss all traditional ideas as irrelevant.
 WILD ANIMALS
Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild animals because
we humans have no need for them. I completely disagree with this point of view.
In my opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild animals have no place in the 21st century. I do not
believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit of humans, and there is nothing special about
this particular century that means that we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the
extinction of any species. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why we should let animals
die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every last square metre of land in order to feed or
accommodate the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with
wild animals, and this should be our aim.
I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is usually the
protection of natural habitats that ensures the survival of wild animals, and most scientists agree
that these habitats are also crucial for human survival. For example, rainforests produce oxygen,
absorb carbon dioxide and stabilise the Earth’s climate. If we destroyed these areas, the costs of
managing the resulting changes to our planet would far outweigh the costs of conservation. By
protecting wild animals and their habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth.
In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist, and I believe
that we should do everything we can to protect them.
 CHILD EDUCATION
Families who send their children to private schools should not be required to pay taxes that
support the state education system. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this
statement?

Some people believe that parents of children who attend private schools should not need to
contribute to state schools through taxes. Personally, I completely disagree with this view.
For a variety of reasons, it would be wrong to reduce taxes for families who pay for private
education. Firstly, it would be difficult to calculate the correct amount of tax reduction for these
families, and staff would be required to manage this complex process. Secondly, we all pay a
certain amount of tax for public services that we may not use. For example, most people are
fortunate enough not to have to call the police or fire brigade at any time in their lives, but they
would not expect a tax reduction for this. Finally, if wealthy families were given a tax discount
for sending their children to private schools, we might have a situation where poorer people pay
higher taxes than the rich.
In my opinion, we should all be happy to pay our share of the money that supports public
schools. It is beneficial for all members of society to have a high quality education system with
equal opportunities for all young people. This will result in a well-educated workforce, and in
turn a more productive and prosperous nation. Parents of children in private schools may also see
the advantages of this in their own lives. For example, a company owner will need well qualified
and competent staff, and a well-funded education system can provide such employees.
In conclusion, I do not believe that any financial concessions should be made for people who
choose private education.
 CELEBRITIES
Nowadays celebrities are more famous for their glamour and wealth than for their
achievements, and this sets a bad example to young people. To what extent do you agree or
disagree with this statement?

It is true that some celebrities are known for their glamorous lifestyles rather than for the work
they do. While I agree that these celebrities set a bad example for children, I believe that other
famous people act as positive role models.
On the one hand, many people do achieve fame without really working for it. They may have
inherited money from parents, married a famous or wealthy person, or they may have appeared in
gossip magazines or on a reality TV programme. A good example would be Paris Hilton, who is
rich and famous for the wrong reasons. She spends her time attending parties and nightclubs, and
her behaviour promotes the idea that appearance, glamour and media profile are more important
than hard work and good character. The message to young people is that success can be achieved
easily, and that school work is not necessary.
On the other hand, there are at least as many celebrities whose accomplishments make them
excellent role models for young people. Actors, musicians and sports stars become famous idols
because they have worked hard and applied themselves to develop real skills and abilities. They
demonstrate great effort, determination and ambition, which is required for someone who wants
to be truly successful in their chosen field. An example is the actor and martial artist Jackie Chan,
who has become world famous through years of practice and hard work. This kind of self-made
celebrity can inspire children to develop their talents through application and perseverance.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the influence of celebrities on young people can be positive as
well as negative.
 JOB AND MONEY
When choosing a job, the salary is the most important consideration. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?

Many people choose their jobs based on the size of the salary offered. Personally, I disagree with
the idea that money is the key consideration when deciding on a career, because I believe that
other factors are equally important.
On the one hand, I agree that money is necessary in order for people to meet their basic needs.
For example, we all need money to pay for housing, food, bills, health care, and education. Most
people consider it a priority to at least earn a salary that allows them to cover these needs and
have a reasonable quality of life. If people chose their jobs based on enjoyment or other non-
financial factors, they might find it difficult to support themselves. Artists and musicians, for
instance, are known for choosing a career path that they love, but that does not always provide
them with enough money to live comfortably and raise a family.
Nevertheless, I believe that other considerations are just as important as what we earn in our jobs.
Firstly, personal relationships and the atmosphere in a workplace are extremely important when
choosing a job. Having a good manager or friendly colleagues, for example, can make a huge
difference to workers’ levels of happiness and general quality of life. Secondly, many people’s
feelings of job satisfaction come from their professional achievements, the skills they learn, and
the position they reach, rather than the money they earn. Finally, some people choose a career
because they want to help others and contribute something positive to society.
In conclusion, while salaries certainly affect people’s choice of profession, I do not believe that
money outweighs all other motivators.
 HOBBIES
Some people believe that hobbies need to be difficult to be enjoyable. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?

Some hobbies are relatively easy, while others present more of a challenge. Personally, I believe
that both types of hobby can be fun, and I therefore disagree with the statement that hobbies need
to be difficult in order to be enjoyable.
On the one hand, many people enjoy easy hobbies. One example of an activity that is easy for
most people is swimming. This hobby requires very little equipment, it is simple to learn, and it is
inexpensive. I remember learning to swim at my local swimming pool when I was a child, and it
never felt like a demanding or challenging experience. Another hobby that I find easy and fun is
photography. In my opinion, anyone can take interesting pictures without knowing too much
about the technicalities of operating a camera. Despite being straightforward, taking photos is a
satisfying activity.
On the other hand, difficult hobbies can sometimes be more exciting. If an activity is more
challenging, we might feel a greater sense of satisfaction when we manage to do it successfully.
For example, film editing is a hobby that requires a high level of knowledge and expertise. In my
case, it took me around two years before I became competent at this activity, but now I enjoy it
much more than I did when I started. I believe that many hobbies give us more pleasure when we
reach a higher level of performance because the results are better and the feeling of achievement
is greater.
In conclusion, simple hobbies can be fun and relaxing, but difficult hobbies can be equally
pleasurable for different reasons.
 HISTORICAL SITES
Foreign visitors should pay more than local visitors for cultural and historical attractions.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

It is sometimes argued that tourists from overseas should be charged more than local residents to
visit important sites and monuments. I completely disagree with this idea.
The argument in favour of higher prices for foreign tourists would be that cultural or historical
attractions often depend on state subsidies to keep them going, which means that the resident
population already pays money to these sites through the tax system. However, I believe this to
be a very shortsighted view. Foreign tourists contribute to the economy of the host country with
the money they spend on a wide range of goods and services, including food, souvenirs,
accommodation and travel. The governments and inhabitants of every country should be happy to
subsidise important tourist sites and encourage people from the rest of the world to visit them.
If travellers realised that they would have to pay more to visit historical and cultural attractions in
a particular nation, they would perhaps decide not to go to that country on holiday. To take the
UK as an example, the tourism industry and many related jobs rely on visitors coming to the
country to see places like Windsor Castle or Saint Paul’s Cathedral. These two sites charge the
same price regardless of nationality, and this helps to promote the nation’s cultural heritage. If
overseas tourists stopped coming due to higher prices, there would be a risk of insufficient
funding for the maintenance of these important buildings.
 UNPAID WORK
Some people think that all teenagers should be required to do unpaid work in their free
time to help the local community. They believe this would benefit both the individual
teenager and society as a whole. Do you agree or disagree?

Many young people work on a volunteer basis, and this can only be beneficial for both the
individual and society as a whole. However, I do not agree that we should therefore force all
teenagers to do unpaid work.
Most young people are already under enough pressure with their studies, without being given the
added responsibility of working in their spare time. School is just as demanding as a full-time
job, and teachers expect their students to do homework and exam revision on top of attending
lessons every day. When young people do have some free time, we should encourage them to
enjoy it with their friends or to spend it doing sports and other leisure activities. They have many
years of work ahead of them when they finish their studies.
At the same time, I do not believe that society has anything to gain from obliging young people to
do unpaid work. In fact, I would argue that it goes against the values of a free and fair society to
force a group of people to do something against their will. Doing this can only lead to resentment
amongst young people, who would feel that they were being used, and parents, who would not
want to be told how to raise their children. Currently, nobody is forced to volunteer, and this is
surely the best system.
In conclusion, teenagers may choose to work for free and help others, but in my opinion we
should not make this compulsory.
 COMMUNITIES
We cannot help everyone in the world that needs help, so we should only be concerned with
our own communities and countries. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this
statement?

Some people believe that we should not help people in other countries as long as there are
problems in our own society. I disagree with this view because I believe that we should try to
help as many people as possible.
On the one hand, I accept that it is important to help our neighbours and fellow citizens. In most
communities there are people who are impoverished or disadvantaged in some way. It is possible
to find homeless people, for example, in even the wealthiest of cities, and for those who are
concerned about this problem, there are usually opportunities to volunteer time or give money to
support these people. In the UK, people can help in a variety of ways, from donating clothing to
serving free food in a soup kitchen. As the problems are on our doorstep, and there are obvious
ways to help, I can understand why some people feel that we should prioritise local charity.
At the same time, I believe that we have an obligation to help those who live beyond our national
borders. In some countries the problems that people face are much more serious than those in our
own communities, and it is often even easier to help. For example, when children are dying from
curable diseases in African countries, governments and individuals in richer countries can save
lives simply by paying for vaccines that already exist. A small donation to an international
charity might have a much greater impact than helping in our local area.
In conclusion, it is true that we cannot help everyone, but in my opinion national boundaries
should not stop us from helping those who are in need.
 MALE VERSUS FEMALE IN UNIVERSITY
Universities should accept equal numbers of male and female students in every subject. To
what extent do you agree or disagree?

In my opinion, men and women should have the same educational opportunities. However, I do
not agree with the idea of accepting equal proportions of each gender in every university subject.
Having the same number of men and women on all degree courses is simply unrealistic. Student
numbers on any course depend on the applications that the institution receives. If a university
decided to fill courses with equal numbers of males and females, it would need enough applicants
of each gender. In reality, many courses are more popular with one gender than the other, and it
would not be practical to aim for equal proportions. For example, nursing courses tend to attract
more female applicants, and it would be difficult to fill these courses if fifty per cent of the places
needed to go to males.
Apart from the practical concerns expressed above, I also believe that it would be unfair to base
admission to university courses on gender. Universities should continue to select the best
candidates for each course according to their qualifications. In this way, both men and women
have the same opportunities, and applicants know that they will be successful if they work hard to
achieve good grades at school. If a female student is the best candidate for a place on a course, it
is surely wrong to reject her in favour of a male student with lower grades or fewer qualifications.
In conclusion, the selection of university students should be based on merit, and it would be both
impractical and unfair to change to a selection procedure based on gender.
 CULTURES AND ADVANCES
It is inevitable that traditional cultures will be lost as technology develops. Technology and
traditional cultures are incompatible. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this
view?

Some people believe that technological developments lead to the loss of traditional cultures. I
partly agree with this assertion; while it may be true in the case of some societies, others seem to
be unaffected by technology and the modern world.
On the one hand, the advances in technology that have driven industrialisation in developed
countries have certainly contributed to the disappearance of traditional ways of life. For example,
in pre-industrial Britain, generations of families grew up in the same small village communities.
These communities had a strong sense of identity, due to their shared customs and beliefs.
However, developments in transport, communications and manufacturing led to the dispersal of
families and village communities as people moved to the cities in search of work. Nowadays
most British villages are inhabited by commuters, many of whom do not know their closest
neighbours.
On the other hand, in some parts of the world traditional cultures still thrive. There are tribes in
the Amazon Rainforest, for example, that have been completely untouched by the technological
developments of the developed world. These tribal communities continue to hunt and gather food
from the forest, and traditional skills are passed on to children by parents and elders. Other
traditional cultures, such as farming communities in parts of Africa, are embracing
communications technologies. Mobile phones give farmers access to information, from weather
predictions to market prices, which helps them to prosper and therefore supports their culture.
In conclusion, many traditional ways of life have been lost as a result of advances in technology,
but other traditional communities have survived and even flourished.
 ADVERTISING
Today, the high sales of popular consumer goods reflect the power of advertising and not
the real needs of the society in which they are sold. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?

It is true that we are increasingly surrounded by advertising by companies that want to sell us
their products. To some extent I agree that advertising has an impact on sales, but I would also
argue that we do need most of the goods that we buy.
Advertisements can certainly tempt people to buy products that they might not otherwise want. A
good example could be the mobile phone. Every year people can be seen queuing to buy the
latest models, even when they already have a perfectly good phone that does not need replacing.
Perhaps it is the influence of marketing that leads us to make these kinds of decisions; we want to
say up-to- date with the latest fashions or own the newest high-status device. The high sales of
the iPhone seem to support this idea.
On the other hand, I believe that most people do not buy products because of the advertising
alone. There are other good reasons why we make these choices, and there must be some kind of
need before a person makes a purchase. New versions of products almost always have improved
features that buyers may want. A new car, for example, may have greatly improved safety
features, or it may be more economical to run, or it may pollute less. A new phone may allow the
user to communicate more quickly or effectively, thus enhancing their quality of life.
In conclusion, while advertising obviously influences our buying behaviour, I do not agree that
people make decisions that go against their real needs.
 HISTORY & LITERATURE
Some people believe that it is more important to teach children the literature and history of
their own country, rather than the literature and history of other countries. To what extent
do you agree or disagree?

People have different views about the teaching of national versus global literature and history in
schools. Personally, I support the idea that children should study first and foremost the great
books and historical events of their own countries.
There are several reasons why I believe that schools should focus on teaching national literature
and history. Firstly, children enjoy learning about where they live, and by studying the ideas,
culture and history of their own countries they begin to develop a sense of identity. At the same
time, this approach is appealing to parents, who studied the same books and historical events and
can therefore help their children with school work. English children, for example, read
Shakespeare and learn about the Battle of Hastings just as their parents did, and there is
educational continuity across the generations. Finally, an emphasis on national literature and
history gives educators a narrower teaching scope, making curriculum design an easier task.
By contrast, the study of global events and foreign novels could cause unnecessary difficulty and
confusion for school pupils. For example, I do not see the point in presenting Russian or Chinese
history to a British child who has not yet studied the history of his or her own country in detail.
Surely the child would be more able to comprehend historical events that took place in London
than those that happened in Moscow or Beijing. Similarly, any exposure to international literature
is likely to require the teaching of a foreign language or the use of translations. Young people at
primary or secondary school age are simply not ready for such complications.
In conclusion, I would argue that it is undesirable for schools to cover aspects of foreign history
and literature; they should ground their pupils in the local culture instead.
 PARENTAL CARE
Caring for children is probably the most important job in any society. Because of this, all
mothers and fathers should be required to take a course that prepares them to be good
parents. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?

It is true that parents shoulder a huge responsibility and that raising children is by no means an
easy task. However, I completely disagree with the idea that we should therefore force all
mothers and fathers to attend parenting courses.
In my opinion, the idea that all future parents should take a parenthood preparation course is
completely impractical. Many prospective parents have jobs and busy schedules, and they may
not be willing or able to attend regular parenting classes. This raises the question of whether
those who missed the classes, or perhaps refused to attend, would be punished. I believe that it
would be wrong to do this, and it would therefore be impossible to enforce the idea of
compulsory training for parents. Besides, even if parents could be forced to attend, I doubt that
people would agree on what good parenting entails, and so it would be difficult to create a
parenting course to suit everyone.
As well as being impractical, I would argue that training courses for parents are unnecessary.
Mothers and fathers have been raising children without any formal help or official interference
for thousands of years. Parenting skills are learnt from family members, friends, neighbours and
the surrounding culture. Perhaps more importantly, adults learn to be good parents by instinct, by
trial and error, and by getting to know their own children; for example, a good parent will try
different strategies when faced with a badly-behaved child, and will gradually develop an
understanding of what works to correct the behaviour. None of this requires the intervention of a
taught course.
In conclusion, while compulsory parenting lessons might seem like a good idea, I believe that
such a scheme would be unworkable and largely pointless.
 SALARIES
In many countries, a small number of people earn extremely high salaries. Some people
believe that this is good for the country, but others think that governments should not allow
salaries above a certain level. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

People have different views about whether governments should introduce a maximum wage.
While in some ways it may seem reasonable to allow people to earn as much as companies are
willing to pay, I personally believe that employee remuneration should be capped at a certain
level.
There are various reasons why it might be considered beneficial to allow people to be paid
extremely high salaries. If companies offer excellent pay packages, they can attract the most
talented people in their fields to work for them. For example, technology companies like Google
are able to employ the best programmers because of the huge sums that they are willing to pay.
Furthermore, these well-paid employees are likely to be highly motivated to work hard and
therefore drive their businesses successfully. In theory, this should result in a thriving economy
and increased tax revenues, which means that paying high salaries benefits everyone.
However, I agree with those who argue that there should be a maximum wage. By introducing a
limit on earnings, the pay-gap between bosses and employees can be reduced. Currently, the
difference between normal and top salaries is huge, and this can demotivate workers who feel
that the situation is unfair.
With lower executive salaries, it might become feasible to introduce higher minimum wages, and
everybody would be better off. One possible consequence of greater equality could be that
poverty and crime rates fall because the general population will experience an improved standard
of living.
In conclusion, it seems to me that it would be better, on balance, for governments to set a limit on
the wages of the highest earners in society.
 ECONOMIC GOALS VERSUS OTHER GOALS
Many governments think that economic progress is their most important goal. Some people,
however, think that other types of progress are equally important for a country. Discuss
both these views and give your own opinion.

People have different views about how governments should measure their countries’ progress.
While economic progress is of course essential, I agree with those who believe that other
measures of progress are just as important.
There are three key reasons why economic growth is seen as a fundamental goal for countries.
Firstly, a healthy economy results in job creation, a high level of employment, and better salaries
for all citizens. Secondly, economic progress ensures that more money is available for
governments to spend on infrastructure and public services. For example, a government with
higher revenues can invest in the country's transport network, its education system and its
hospitals. Finally, a strong economy can help a country’s standing on the global stage, in terms of
its political influence and trading power.
However, I would argue that various other forms of progress are just as significant as the
economic factors mentioned above. In particular, we should consider the area of social justice,
human rights, equality and democracy itself. For example, the treatment of minority groups is
often seen as a reflection of the moral standards and level of development of a society. Perhaps
another key consideration when judging the progress of a modern country should be how well
that country protects the natural environment, and whether it is moving towards environmental
sustainability. Alternatively, the success of a nation could be measured by looking at the health,
well-being and happiness of its residents.
In conclusion, the economy is obviously a key marker of a country’s success, but social,
environmental and health criteria are equally significant.
 MINORITY LANGUAGES
Several languages are in danger of extinction because they are spoken by very small
numbers of people. Some people say that governments should spend public money on
saving these languages, while others believe that would be a waste of money. Discuss both
these views and give your opinion.

It is true that some minority languages may disappear in the near future. Although it can be
argued that governments could save money by allowing this to happen, I believe that these
languages should be protected and preserved.
There are several reasons why saving minority languages could be seen as a waste of money.
Firstly, if a language is only spoken by a small number of people, expensive education
programmes will be needed to make sure that more people learn it, and the state will have to pay
for facilities, teachers and marketing. This money might be better spent on other public services.
Secondly, it would be much cheaper and more efficient for countries to have just one language.
Governments could cut all kinds of costs related to communicating with each minority group.
Despite the above arguments, I believe that governments should try to preserve languages that are
less widely spoken. A language is much more than simply a means of communication; it has a
vital connection with the cultural identity of the people who speak it. If a language disappears, a
whole way of life will disappear with it, and we will lose the rich cultural diversity that makes
societies more interesting. By spending money to protect minority languages, governments can
also preserve traditions, customs and behaviours that are part of a country’s history.
In conclusion, it may save money in the short term if we allow minority languages to disappear,
but in the long term this would have an extremely negative impact on our cultural heritage.
 UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
Some people think that all university students should study whatever they like. Others
believe that they should only be allowed to study subjects that will be useful in the future,
such as those related to science and technology. Discuss both these views and give your own
opinion.

People have different views about how much choice students should have with regard to what
they can study at university. While some argue that it would be better for students to be forced
into certain key subject areas, I believe that everyone should be able to study the course of their
choice.
There are various reasons why people believe that universities should only offer subjects that will
be useful in the future. They may assert that university courses like medicine, engineering and
information technology are more likely to be beneficial than certain art degrees. From a personal
perspective, it can be argued that these courses provide more job opportunities, career
progression, better salaries, and therefore an improved quality of life for students who take them.
On the societal level, by forcing people to choose particular university subjects, governments can
ensure that any knowledge and skill gaps in the economy are covered. Finally, a focus on
technology in higher education could lead to new inventions, economic growth, and greater
future prosperity.
In spite of these arguments, I believe that university students should be free to choose their
preferred areas of study. In my opinion, society will benefit more if our students are passionate
about what they are learning. Besides, nobody can really predict which areas of knowledge will
be most useful to society in the future, and it may be that employers begin to value creative
thinking skills above practical or technical skills. If this were the case, perhaps we would need
more students of art, history and philosophy than of science or technology.
In conclusion, although it might seem sensible for universities to focus only on the most useful
subjects, I personally prefer the current system in which people have the right to study whatever
they like.
 PUNISHMENTS TO DRIVERS
Some people think that strict punishments for driving offences are the key to reducing
traffic accidents. Others, however, believe that other measures would be more effective in
improving road safety. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

People have differing views with regard to the question of how to make our roads safer. In my
view, both punishments and a range of other measures can be used together to promote better
driving habits.
On the one hand, strict punishments can certainly help to encourage people to drive more safely.
Penalties for dangerous drivers can act as a deterrent, meaning that people avoid repeating the
same offence. There are various types of driving penalty, such as small fines, licence suspension,
driver awareness courses, and even prison sentences. The aim of these punishments is to show
dangerous drivers that their actions have negative consequences. As a result, we would hope that
drivers become more disciplined and alert, and that they follow the rules more carefully.
On the other hand, I believe that safe driving can be promoted in several different ways that do
not punish drivers. Firstly, it is vitally important to educate people properly before they start to
drive, and this could be done in schools or even as part of an extended or more difficult driving
test. Secondly, more attention could be paid to safe road design. For example, signs can be used
to warn people, speed bumps and road bends can be added to calm traffic, and speed cameras can
help to deter people from driving too quickly.
Finally, governments or local councils could reduce road accidents by investing in better public
transport, which would mean that fewer people would need to travel by car.
In conclusion, while punishments can help to prevent bad driving, I believe that other road safety
measures should also be introduced.
 PEOPLE’S RELATIONSHIPS
Some people think that in the modern world we are more dependent on each other, while
others think that people have become more independent. Discuss both views and give your
own opinion.

People have different views about whether we are more or less dependent on others nowadays. In
my view, modern life forces us to be more independent than people were in the past.
There are two main reasons why it could be argued that we are more dependent on each other
now. Firstly, life is more complex and difficult, especially because the cost of living has
increased so dramatically. For example, young adults tend to rely on their parents for help when
buying a house. Property prices are higher than ever, and without help it would be impossible for
many people to pay a deposit and a mortgage. Secondly, people seem to be more ambitious
nowadays, and they want a better quality of life for their families. This means that both parents
usually need to work full-time, and they depend on support from grandparents and babysitters for
child care.
However, I would agree with those who believe that people are more independent these days. In
most countries, families are becoming smaller and more dispersed, which means that people
cannot count on relatives as much as they used to. We also have more freedom to travel and live
far away from our home towns. For example, many students choose to study abroad instead of
going to their local university, and this experience makes them more independent as they learn to
live alone.
Another factor in this growing independence is technology, which allows us to work alone and
from any part of the world.
In conclusion, while there are some reasons to believe that people now depend on each other
more, my own view is that we are more independent than ever.
 FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO ARTISTS
Some people think that governments should give financial support to creative artists such
as painters and musicians. Others believe that creative artists should be funded by
alternative sources. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

People have different views about the funding of creative artists. While some people disagree
with the idea of government support for artists, I believe that money for art projects should come
from both governments and other sources.
Some art projects definitely require help from the state. In the UK, there are many works of art in
public spaces, such as streets or squares in city centres. In Liverpool, for example, there are
several new statues and sculptures in the docks area of the city, which has been redeveloped
recently. These artworks represent culture, heritage and history. They serve to educate people
about the city, and act as landmarks or talking points for visitors and tourists. Governments and
local councils should pay creative artists to produce this kind of art, because without their
funding our cities would be much less interesting and attractive.
On the other hand, I can understand the arguments against government funding for art. The main
reason for this view is that governments have more important concerns. For example, state
budgets need to be spent on education, healthcare, infrastructure and security, among other areas.
These public services are vital for a country to function properly, whereas the work of creative
artists, even in public places, is a luxury. Another reason for this opinion is that artists do a job
like any other professional, and they should therefore earn their own money by selling their work.
In conclusion, there are good reasons why artists should rely on alternative sources of financial
support, but in my opinion government help is sometimes necessary.
 ANIMAL TESTING
Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the
safety of other products. Some people argue that these experiments should be banned
because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them
because of their benefits to humanity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

It is true that medicines and other products are routinely tested on animals before they are cleared
for human use. While I tend towards the viewpoint that animal testing is morally wrong, I would
have to support a limited amount of animal experimentation for the development of medicines.
On the one hand, there are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. To use a
common example of this practice, laboratory mice may be given an illness so that the
effectiveness of a new drug can be measured. Opponents of such research argue that humans
have no right to subject animals to this kind of trauma, and that the lives of all creatures should
be respected. They believe that the benefits to humans do not justify the suffering caused, and
that scientists should use alternative methods of research.
On the other hand, reliable alternatives to animal experimentation may not always be available.
Supporters of the use of animals in medical research believe that a certain amount of suffering on
the part of mice or rats can be justified if human lives are saved. They argue that opponents of
such research might feel differently if a member of their own families needed a medical treatment
that had been developed through the use of animal experimentation. Personally, I agree with the
banning of animal testing for non-medical products, but I feel that it may be a necessary evil
where new drugs and medical procedures are concerned.
In conclusion, it seems to me that it would be wrong to ban testing on animals for vital medical
research until equally effective alternatives have been developed.
 HIGHER EDUCATION VERSUS WORK
Some people believe that studying at university or college is the best route to a successful
career, while others believe that it is better to get a job straight after school. Discuss both
views and give your opinion.

When they finish school, teenagers face the dilemma of whether to get a job or continue their
education. While there are some benefits to getting a job straight after school, I would argue that
it is better to go to college or university.
The option to start work straight after school is attractive for several reasons. Many young people
want to start earning money as soon as possible. In this way, they can become independent, and
they will be able to afford their own house or start a family. In terms of their career, young people
who decide to find work, rather than continue their studies, may progress more quickly. They will
have the chance to gain real experience and learn practical skills related to their chosen
profession. This may lead to promotions and a successful career.
On the other hand, I believe that it is more beneficial for students to continue their studies.
Firstly, academic qualifications are required in many professions. For example, it is impossible to
become a doctor, teacher or lawyer without having the relevant degree. As a result, university
graduates have access to more and better job opportunities, and they tend to earn higher salaries
than those with fewer qualifications. Secondly, the job market is becoming increasingly
competitive, and sometimes there are hundreds of applicants for one position in a company.
Young people who do not have qualifications from a university or college will not be able to
compete.
For the reasons mentioned above, it seems to me that students are more likely to be successful in
their careers if they continue their studies beyond school level.
 MUSEUMS
Some people think that museums should be enjoyable places to entertain people, while
others believe that the purpose of museums is to educate. Discuss both views and give you
own opinion.

People have different views about the role and function of museums. In my opinion, museums
can and should be both entertaining and educational.
On the one hand, it can be argued that the main role of a museum is to entertain. Museums are
tourist attractions, and their aim is to exhibit a collection of interesting objects that many people
will want to see. The average visitor may become bored if he or she has to read or listen to too
much educational content, so museums often put more of an emphasis on enjoyment rather than
learning. This type of museum is designed to be visually spectacular, and may have interactive
activities or even games as part of its exhibitions.
On the other hand, some people argue that museums should focus on education. The aim of any
exhibition should be to teach visitors something that they did not previously know. Usually this
means that the history behind the museum’s exhibits needs to be explained, and this can be done
in various ways. Some museums employ professional guides to talk to their visitors, while other
museums offer headsets so that visitors can listen to detailed commentary about the exhibition. In
this way, museums can play an important role in teaching people about history, culture, science
and many other aspects of life.
In conclusion, it seems to me that a good museum should be able to offer an interesting,
enjoyable and educational experience so that people can have fun and learn something at the
same time.
 LIVING ALONE
In some countries, many more people are choosing to live alone nowadays than in the past.
Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

In recent years it has become far more normal for people to live alone, particularly in large cities
in the developed world. In my opinion, this trend could have both positive and negative
consequences in equal measure.
The rise in one-person households can be seen as positive for both personal and broader
economic reasons. On an individual level, people who choose to live alone may become more
independent and self-reliant than those who live with family members. A young adult who lives
alone, for example, will need to learn to cook, clean, pay bills and manage his or her budget, all
of which are valuable life skills; an increase in the number of such individuals can certainly be
seen as a positive development. From an economic perspective, the trend towards living alone
will result in greater demand for housing. This is likely to benefit the construction industry, estate
agents and a whole host of other companies that rely on homeowners to buy their products or
services.
However, the personal and economic arguments given above can be considered from the opposite
angle. Firstly, rather than the positive feeling of increased independence, people who live alone
may experience feelings of loneliness, isolation and worry. They miss out on the emotional
support and daily conversation that family or flatmates can provide, and they must bear the
weight of all household bills and responsibilities; in this sense, perhaps the trend towards living
alone is a negative one. Secondly, from the financial point of view, a rise in demand for housing
is likely to push up property prices and rents. While this may benefit some businesses, the general
population, including those who live alone, will be faced with rising living costs.
In conclusion, the increase in one-person households will have both beneficial and detrimental
effects on individuals and on the economy.
 VIDEO GAMES
Some people regard video games as harmless fun, or even as a useful educational tool.
Others, however, believe that videos games are having an adverse effect on the people who
play them. In your opinion, do the drawbacks of video games outweigh the benefits?

Many people, and children in particular, enjoy playing computer games. While I accept that these
games can sometimes have a positive effect on the user, I believe that they are more likely to
have a harmful impact.
On the one hand, video games can be both entertaining and educational. Users, or gamers, are
transported into virtual worlds which are often more exciting and engaging than real-life
pastimes. From an educational perspective, these games encourage imagination and creativity, as
well as concentration, logical thinking and problem solving, all of which are useful skills outside
the gaming context. Furthermore, it has been shown that computer simulation games can improve
users’ motor skills and help to prepare them for real-world tasks, such as flying a plane.
However, I would argue that these benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks. Gaming can be
highly addictive because users are constantly given scores, new targets and frequent rewards to
keep them playing. Many children now spend hours each day trying to progress through the
levels of a game or to get a higher score than their friends. This type of addiction can have effects
ranging from lack of sleep to problems at school, when homework is sacrificed for a few more
hours on the computer or console. The rise in obesity in recent years has also been linked in part
to the sedentary lifestyle and lack of exercise that often accompany gaming addiction.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the potential dangers of video games are more significant than
the possible benefits.
 ONLINE COURSES
Some universities now offer their courses on the Internet so that people can study online. Is
this a positive or negative development?

It is true that online courses are becoming a common feature of university education. Although
there are some drawbacks of Internet-based learning, I would argue that there are far more
benefits.
The main drawback of the trend towards online university courses is that there is less direct
interaction. Students may not have the opportunity to engage face-to-face with their teachers, and
will instead have to rely on written forms of communication. Similarly, students who study
online do not come into direct contact with each other, and this could have a negative impact on
peer support, discussion and exchange of ideas. For example, whereas students on traditional
courses can attend seminars and even discuss their subjects over coffee after lessons, online
learners are restricted to chatting through website forum areas. These learners may also lack the
motivation and element of competition that face-to-face group work brings.
Despite the negatives mentioned above, I believe that online university courses are a positive
development for various reasons. Firstly, they allow learners to study in a flexible way, meaning
that they can work whenever and wherever is convenient, and they can cover the material at their
own pace. Secondly, the cost of a university education can be greatly reduced, while revenues for
institutions may increase as more students can be taught. Finally, online learning offers open
access to anybody who is willing to study, regardless of age, location, ability and background.
For example, my uncle, who is 65 years old, has recently enrolled on an online MBA course in a
different country, which would have been impossible in the days before Internet-based education.
In conclusion, while I recognise the possible disadvantages of online learning, I consider it to be
a positive development overall.
 LIFE EXPECTANCY
In the developed world, average life expectancy is increasing. What problems will this cause
for individuals and society? Suggest some measures that could be taken to reduce the
impact of ageing populations.

It is true that people in industrialised nations can expect to live longer than ever before. Although
there will undoubtedly be some negative consequences of this trend, societies can take steps to
mitigate these potential problems.
As people live longer and the populations of developed countries grow older, several related
problems can be anticipated. The main issue is that there will obviously be more people of
retirement age who will be eligible to receive a pension. The proportion of younger, working
adults will be smaller, and governments will therefore receive less money in taxes in relation to
the size of the population. In other words, an ageing population will mean a greater tax burden for
working adults. Further pressures will include a rise in the demand for healthcare, and the fact
young adults will increasingly have to look after their elderly relatives.
There are several actions that governments could take to solve the problems described above.
Firstly, a simple solution would be to increase the retirement age for working adults, perhaps
from 65 to 70. Nowadays, people of this age tend to be healthy enough to continue a productive
working life. A second measure would be for governments to encourage immigration in order to
increase the number of working adults who pay taxes. Finally, money from national budgets will
need to be taken from other areas and spent on vital healthcare, accommodation and transport
facilities for the rising numbers of older citizens.
In conclusion, various measures can be taken to tackle the problems that are certain to arise as the
populations of countries grow older.
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Explain some of the ways in which humans are damaging the environment. What can
governments do to address these problems? What can individual people do?

Humans are responsible for a variety of environmental problems, but we can also take steps to
reduce the damage that we are causing to the planet. This essay will discuss environmental
problems and the measures that governments and individuals can take to address these problems.
Two of the biggest threats to the environment are air pollution and waste. Gas emissions from
factories and exhaust fumes from vehicles lead to global warming, which may have a devastating
effect on the planet in the future. As the human population increases, we are also producing ever
greater quantities of waste, which contaminates the earth and pollutes rivers and oceans.
Governments could certainly make more effort to reduce air pollution. They could introduce laws
to limit emissions from factories or to force companies to use renewable energy from solar, wind
or water power. They could also impose ‘green taxes’ on drivers and airline companies. In this
way, people would be encouraged to use public transport and to take fewer flights abroad,
therefore reducing emissions.
Individuals should also take responsibility for the impact they have on the environment. They can
take public transport rather than driving, choose products with less packaging, and recycle as
much as possible. Most supermarkets now provide reusable bags for shoppers as well as ‘banks’
for recycling glass, plastic and paper in their car parks. By reusing and recycling, we can help to
reduce waste.
In conclusion, both national governments and individuals must play their part in looking after the
environment.
 FOREIGN FILMS
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 subsidising the industry.
There are various reasons why many people find foreign films more enjoyable than the films
produced in their own countries. Firstly, the established film industries in certain countries have
huge budgets for action, special effects and to shoot 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 film-makers 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.
 TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Traffic congestion is becoming increasingly problematic in major cities. What solutions can
you suggest to help solve the problem?

Major cities around the world are beset by a similar problem: traffic congestion. From Shanghai
to New York, key cities in most developing or developed countries are tackling congested roads
and all the negative consequences that this brings. Finding answers is an ongoing issue.
One key solution for the problem is public transport. In many places this is not convenient and
too expensive which means that people still prefer to take their own cars rather than travel by bus,
train or underground. Reducing the cost of public transport and checking that it works smoothly,
for example by ensuring that buses link to key train stations and run late enough each day, will
entice people back onto public transport systems.
Ensuring that this transport has proper staffing, in other words have ticket inspectors and staff at
stations, will also help as people will feel safer. This would, for example, allow women travelling
alone late at night to still feel secure.
Another way to persuade people to leave their cars at home is by increasing taxes on driving.
Charging tax on parking and petrol could bring in more revenue to fund better roads or support
other types of transport. For example, higher road tax could fund cycling paths within cities.
However, making travel by private car more difficult is only viable if reliable and affordable
alternatives are in place. Another measure which could help Ls to develop more ‘park and ride'
schemes where people can park free at the edge of the city and catch a bus in to the centre. There
should also be more cycle paths available.
By having better alternatives in place and making them more attractive than using private cars, it
may be possible to reduce the increasing problems with traffic congestion that modem cities face.
 HAPPINESS
Happiness is considered very important in life. Why is it difficult to define? What factors
are important in achieving happiness?

It is no doubt true that the majority of people would like to be happy in their lives. While the
personal nature of happiness makes it difficult to describe, there do seem to be some common
needs that we all share with regard to experiencing or achieving happiness.
Happiness is difficult to define because it means something different to each individual person.
Nobody can fully understand or experience another person’s feelings, and we all have our own
particular passions from which we take pleasure. Some people, for example, derive a sense of
satisfaction from earning money or achieving success, whereas for others, health and family are
much more important. At the same time, a range of other feelings, from excitement to
peacefulness, may be associated with the idea of happiness, and the same person may therefore
feel happy in a variety of different ways.
Although it seems almost impossible to give a precise definition of happiness, most people would
agree that there are some basic preconditions to achieving it. Firstly, it is hard for a person to be
happy if he or she does not have a safe place to live and enough food to eat.
Our basic survival needs must surely be met before we can lead a pleasant life. Secondly, the
greatest joy in life is usually found in shared experiences with family and friends, and it is rare to
find a person who is content to live in complete isolation. Other key factors could be individual
freedom and a sense of purpose in life.
In conclusion, happiness is difficult to define because it is particular to each individual, but I
believe that our basic needs for shelter, food and company need to be fulfilled before we can
experience it.
 THE ROLES OF MUSIC
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. 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. As children, we are taught
songs by our parents and teachers as a means of learning language, or simply as a form of
enjoyment. Children delight in singing with others, and it would appear that the act of singing in
a group creates a connection between participants, regardless of their age. Later in life, people’s
musical preferences develop, and we come to see our favourite songs as part of our life stories.
Music both expresses and arouses emotions in a way that words alone cannot. In short, it is
difficult to imagine life without it.
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...(example)..., 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 disappeared.
In conclusion, music is a necessary part of human existence, and I believe that traditional music
should be given more importance than international music.
 TECHNOLOGY VERSUS PEOPLE’S INTERACTION
Nowadays the way many people interact with each other has changed because of
technology. In what ways has technology affected the types of relationships that people
make? Has this been a positive or negative development?

It is true that new technologies have had an influence on communication between people.
Technology has affected relationships in various ways, and in my opinion there are both positive
and negative effects.
Technology has had an impact on relationships in business, education and social life. Firstly,
telephones and the Internet allow business people in different countries to interact without ever
meeting each other. Secondly, services like Skype create new possibilities for relationships
between students and teachers. For example, a student can now take video lessons with a teacher
in a different city or country. Finally, many people use social networks, like Facebook, to make
new friends and find people who share common interests, and they interact through their
computers rather than face to face.
On the one hand, these developments can be extremely positive. Cooperation between people in
different countries was much more difficult when communication was limited to written letters or
telegrams. Nowadays, interactions by email, phone or video are almost as good as face-to-face
meetings, and many of us benefit from these interactions, either in work or social contexts. On
the other hand, the availability of new communication technologies can also have the result of
isolating people and discouraging real interaction. For example, many young people choose to
make friends online rather than mixing with their peers in the real world, and these ‘virtual’
relationships are a poor substitute for real friendships.
In conclusion, technology has certainly revolutionised communication between people, but not all
of the outcomes of this revolution have been positive.
 CAREER PATH
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?

It is true that some people know from an early age what career they want to pursue, and they are
happy to spend the rest of their lives in the same profession. While I accept that this may suit
many people, I believe that others enjoy changing careers or seeking job satisfaction in different
ways.
On the one hand, having a defined career path can certainly lead to a satisfying working life.
Many people decide as young children what they want to do as adults, and it gives them a sense
of satisfaction to work towards their goals and gradually achieve them. For example, many
children dream of becoming doctors, but to realise this ambition they need to gain the relevant
qualifications and undertake years of training. In my experience, very few people who have
qualified as doctors choose to change their career because they find their work so rewarding, and
because they have invested so much time and effort to reach their goal.
On the other hand, people find happiness in their working lives in different ways. Firstly, not
everyone dreams of doing a particular job, and it can be equally rewarding to try a variety of
professions; starting out on a completely new career path can be a reinvigorating experience.
Secondly, some people see their jobs as simply a means of earning money, and they are happy if
their salary is high enough to allow them to enjoy life outside work. Finally, job satisfaction is
often the result of working conditions, rather than the career itself. For example, a positive
working atmosphere, enthusiastic colleagues, and an inspirational boss can make working life
much more satisfying, regardless of the profession.
In conclusion, it can certainly be satisfying to pursue a particular career for the while of one’s
life, but this is by no means the only route to fulfilment
 EQUALITY
In recent years, there has been growing interest in the relationship between equality and
personal achievement. Some people believe that individuals can achieve more in egalitarian
societies. Others believe that high levels of personal achievement are possible only if
individuals are free to succeed or fail according to their individual merits. What is your
view of the relationship between equality and personal success?

In my opinion, an egalitarian society is one in which everyone has the same rights and the same
opportunities. I completely agree that people can achieve more in this kind of society.
Education is an important factor with regard to personal success in life. I believe that all children
should have access to free schooling, and higher education should be either free or affordable for
all those who chose to pursue a university degree. In a society without free schooling or
affordable higher education, only children and young adults from wealthier families would have
access to the best learning opportunities, and they would therefore be better prepared for the job
market. This kind of inequality would ensure the success of some but harm the prospects of
others.
I would argue that equal rights and opportunities are not in conflict with people’s freedom to
succeed or fail. In other words, equality does not mean that people lose their motivation to
succeed, or that they are not allowed to fail. On the contrary, I believe that most people would
feel more motivated to work hard and reach their potential if they thought that they lived in a fair
society. Those who did not make the same effort would know that they had wasted their
opportunity. Inequality, on the other hand, would be more likely to demotivate people because
they would know that the odds of success were stacked in favour of those from privileged
backgrounds.
In conclusion, it seems to me that there is a positive relationship between equality and personal
success.
 WORK-LIFE BALANCE
Many people try to balance work and other parts of their life. However, this is very difficult
to do. What are the problems associated with this? What is the best way to achieve a better
balance?

People today are increasingly concerned with individual happiness and work-life balance. The
main problem for most people is that work takes up too much time and causes mental health
issues and the best way to achieve this balance is to work more efficiently.
The primary issues associated with work-life balance are the amount of time people must spend
working and how this impacts their mental health. Since the global financial crisis of 2008, the
job market around the world has become increasingly competitive. This means that old workers
may get pushed out of their jobs by younger graduates willing to work for less and that new
graduates have to put in enormous extra hours to catch up. The end result is more work, which
eats away at a person’s private life. Once your free time becomes restricted there are a variety of
related mental health problems that can appear. For example, someone who is overworked can
suffer from excessive stress, some forms of depression, and obesity because of the lack of time
available to exercise. That is why there has been a sharp rise in the last decade in these problems.
The best way for people to combat being overworked and get more time for their personal life is
to work more efficiently. In an ideal world, there would be ways to alleviate the burden that put
less stress on individuals but making the most of your time is a more pragmatic solution. For
example, smartphones allow people to get a lot of work done in what were previously wasted
hours in the past. You can send emails, make phone calls, and use productivity applications when
waiting for the bus, train, or standing in line. People will have to make the choice not to scroll
through Facebook or read the news but that is a small sacrifice to have some extra time at the end
of the day to do their hobbies or spend time with a loved one.
In conclusion, the problems associated with poor work-life balance are especially apparent
because of the current economic climate and the best solution is to find ways to maximise
efficiency. If more people changed their daily habits related to social media and using the
internet, then they might be able to find more worthwhile passions and not feel as though their
life is passing them by.
 CHOICES
Some people believe that nowadays we have too many choices. To what extent do you agree
or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your
own experience or knowledge. Write at least 250 words.

It is common nowadays to hear people decrying the number of choices people have relative to the
past and proclaiming the drawbacks of so many easily-available options in a variety of areas of
life. While I think that there is some truth in this, increased choice is ultimately a positive trend
because it opens up options outside the mainstream.
The main reason why increased choice is considered a negative development is it makes life more
complicated. Take for example the number of products people can choose from today.
Supermarkets are filled with different brands with hardly any meaningful differences. This can
cause people to waste time and energy making choices with little actual impact. This is also the
case when it comes to online streaming services like Netflix, Hulu and HBO. Not only do people
have to spend time researching these sites but once they make a choice they are limiting what
they will be able to watch in the future. If they decide to subscribe to all of them, suddenly they
will be paying upwards of $40 a month for basic viewing content. These are a couple of ways in
which choice can take up time and make life more complex.
Although choice introduces a level of complexity to life, the main benefit is that it opens up
options for people outside dominant cultural trends. The best example of this is the changes that
have taken place in the music industry over the last 20 years with the advent of iTunes and
streaming services. In the past, the big pop acts dominated the radio and album sales. Now the
music scene is much more fractured. This makes it more difficult for some artists but also opens
up the possibility that you can find a niche of music that you and some other people love. This
has been replicated in other areas like podcasting, painting, and film as well. People can find
what interests them outside of what major companies are trying to push. That is why increased
choice is positively taken as a whole.
In conclusion, the drawbacks of increased choice do not outweigh the advantages gained by
allowing people to explore what interests them the most. In the future, this will continue and
present challenges but also allow for a more diverse cultural experience for rich and poor alike,
all over the world.
 ANIMAL RIGHTS
A growing number of people feel that animals should not be exploited by people and that
they should have the same rights as humans, while others argue that humans must employ
animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research. Discuss both
views and give your opinion.

Some people believe that animals should be treated in the same way humans are and have similar
rights, whereas others think that it is more important to use them as we desire for food and
medical research. This essay will discuss both points of view.
With regard to the exploitation of animals, people believe it is acceptable for several reasons.
Firstly, they think that humans are the most important beings on the planet, and everything must
be done to ensure human survival. If this means experimenting on animals so that we can fight
and find cures for diseases, then this takes priority over animal suffering. Furthermore, it is
believed by some that animals do not feel pain or loss as humans do, so if we have to kill animals
for food or other uses, then this is morally acceptable.
However, I do not believe these arguments stand up to scrutiny. To begin, it has been shown on
numerous occasions by secret filming in laboratories via animal rights groups that animals feel as
much pain as humans do, and they suffer when they are kept in cages for long periods. In
addition, a substantial amount of animal research is done for cosmetics, not to find cures for
diseases, so this is unnecessary. Finally, it has also been proven that humans can get all the
nutrients and vitamins that they need from green vegetables and fruit. Therefore, again, having to
kill animals for food is not an adequate argument.
To sum up, although some people argue killing animals for research and food is ethical, I would
argue there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case, and, therefore, steps
must be taken to improve the rights of animals.
 BUILDINGS
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?

When it comes to building design, architects often have to make compromises between form and
function. Many feel that the purpose of the building should dictate these decisions. I agree that
how the building will be used is a key factor, but I think that how it looks is just as important.
Those who argue that a building should be constructed according to its function are mainly
thinking about the people who will later use the building. 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 consider parking areas, how cars will pick up and drop
off children, where to put the playground, access for people with disabilities, and that is just the
area around the school. A beautiful parking lot that only has room for a handful of cars is useless.
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. If the
architect is overly focused on how the school looks, then they may sacrifice ease of use and
practicality.
However, the look of the building is also important because of the role of art in everyday life.
Architecture is often considered one of the original and purest forms of artistic expression. I am
reminded of a quote from Pablo Picasso who said ‘Art washes away from the soul the dust of
everyday life.’ Imagine a city filled with ugly, utilitarian structures like many Soviet-era
buildings. These buildings will not lift people’s spirits or encourage them to contemplate the
intended message. Contrast this with a city where architects have been given free rein to be
artists. As long as the buildings are also functional, you will find a city filled with beauty and
provocation that enhances life for its inhabitants. The outward appearance does not have to be
beautiful, but it has a responsibility to contribute something to enrich the lives of everyday
people.
In conclusion, how a building works is equally as important as how that same building looks.
Form should not follow function but be fused together in order to add to the aesthetic dimension
of a city. It is undoubtedly more challenging, expensive and time-consuming to achieve this kind
of balance, but it is also worth the effort.
 BIG CITIES
Living in large cities today poses many problems for people. What are these problems?
Should governments encourage more people to live in smaller towns?

More and more people live in cities today than at any point in the past and this trend will likely
continue in the future. This has resulted in many problems including extreme overcrowding and
governments should take measures to make living outside cities more attractive.
There are a wide range of drawbacks associated with the rise of modern cities but one of the most
obvious issues is related to population density. The large number of people crammed into a
relatively small area has caused expensive housing, increased traffic and severe pollution. For
example, apartment prices in mega-cities like Tokyo and New York have soared to the point
where only the wealthiest inhabitants can afford decent living standards. Regardless of financial
status, all city dwellers have to deal with more and more traffic jams as the population increases
while the area of cities remains fixed. Finally, all these people living and travelling in one place
puts a tremendous strain on the environment and some cities, like Beijing in China, have become
dangerously polluted.
In my opinion, governments have a duty to encourage citizens to move to more rural areas. If
cities continue to expand unabated then the above problems will only get worse. We might one
day find ourselves living in densely packed, heavily polluted cities that resemble scenes from a
dystopian science fiction film. In order to prevent this from happening, the government can give
tax breaks to companies that choose to locate offices and production facilities outside the city.
This will provide more jobs for people who are willing to live in the countryside.
In conclusion, the concerns related to overcrowding in cities can and should be somewhat
countered by governments incentivising living in rural areas. If this is done then we may still face
problems related to cities in the future, but at least they will not be as serious
 ONLINE MEETING
Recent research has shown that business meetings and training are increasingly taking
place online. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?

Many businesses today choose to hold meetings and do training online, rather than in person.
While this has certain drawbacks related to interpersonal relationships, I still feel this is a positive
trend because of its positive impact on employees with families. In this essay, I will discuss both
sides in detail.
Conducting the majority of business meetings online has a potentially negative effect on the
social dynamics of a company. The preference for online communication sacrifices essential
elements of human interaction in the name of a more efficient, utilitarian process. When people
sit in a room together, for training or a meeting, they are more likely to form strong interpersonal
bonds. They will be able to see each other’s body language better and there is a good chance they
may socialise in person afterwards. For example, employees might go for drinks or even just have
a private chat about the meeting or training while still at work. This is much less likely to happen
when people are working from home or a remote location and using online tools like Skype to
communicate.
Companies that choose to do more training and have more meetings online are making life more
convenient for their employees with families. At some point in their lives, most people must face
the challenge of working and having a family. If both the mother and father work, then one of
them might have to give up their job to stay home or they will have to hire an expensive caretaker
to look after their child during the day. If more meetings and training took place online, this could
free up time for people in certain jobs, such as IT workers, to work entirely from home and look
after their children during the day. They will still have to make time for the training and meetings
but at least they won’t waste valuable time commuting to the office.
The move towards increased online training and meetings may sacrifice some of the social
aspects of work but this is more than made up for by the convenience it allows working families.
In many families today, both the mother and father have to work to make ends meet and we
should support any efforts to relieve their financial and physical burdens.
 LEADERSHIP
Some are of the opinion that people are naturally born as good leaders while others feel that
leadership skills can be learned. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

It is often said that important people are born with certain characteristics that enable them to
become great leaders. The alternative view is that leadership is a learnable quality. Personally, I
agree with the latter viewpoint because training and experience are more important than innate
ability in this situation.
It is somewhat true that many individuals are born with distinctive personal traits that allow them
the opportunity to become talented leaders. Leaders tend to be those who are charming and
persuasive. In contrast, those who lack of these characteristics may have difficulty inspiring the
belief and loyalty that all leaders require and end up as followers rather than leaders. For
instance, a salesman who often fails to convince his clients to sign a deal may be dissuaded from
becoming the sales team leader since he does not believe that he has what it takes to be one. The
more convincing salesmen are more likely to rise to that role.
However, there are also people who assert that leadership skills can actually be achieved through
proper training and effort. That is why there is a larger number of institutes offering leadership
training programmes helping those who want to learn the skills required to be a leader. Public
speaking is one of many skills these schools can teach. Individuals who are shy and lack
confidence can find their feet in the leadership battle by learning the essence of good body
language, pronunciation, and other elements of good public speaking. This will in turn make
them better leaders.
In conclusion, although some traits related to leadership are likely inherited there is tremendous
room for people to grow into positions of responsibility if they apply themselves fully to learning
the skills and personal characteristics of great leaders.
 INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIETY
Climate change is a phenomenon that affects countries all over the world. Many people
strongly believe that it is the responsibility of individuals, rather than corporations and
governments, to deal with this problem. To what extent do you agree?

Climate change is a very real danger that threatens not only our lives but also the quality of life of
future generations. To combat this I strongly disagree that individuals need to take responsibility
because governments, in cooperation with private companies have both a greater responsibility
and capacity in this matter.
Climate change cannot simply be the responsibility of private citizens because they do not have
the ability to affect large systemic changes in the way that governments in conjunction with
corporations do. People can only contribute in small ways; for every person who recycles there
are several people who do not and there is no certain way to change this. Governments, on the
other hand, can enact legislation requiring both individuals and large corporations to abide by
certain restrictions. Laws for corporations are the real solution as they contribute by far the most
to climate change and by reducing how much waste produced and how they treat that waste,
climate change can be seriously countered.
The second reason governments should be responsible for combating climate change is that
governments are responsible for global problems while individuals should only have to deal with
local and personal problems. A person should only concern themselves with their job and
personal life because that is the extent of their responsibility. Governments are responsible for
various things related to their citizens including security, health care in some cases, and
education. Included in security is the environment because it impacts citizen’s well-being;
therefore this falls under the remit of what governmental responsibility.
Individuals will never be able to have the effect government will and it is not their responsibility
at any rate. In my opinion, governments, by taking measures to rein in corporate and private
waste are taking up their rightful burden.
 PERSONALITY
Research indicates that the characteristics we are born with have much more influence on
our personality and development than any experiences we may have in our life. Which do
you consider to be the major influence?

This model has been prepared by an examiner as an example of a very good answer.
Today the way we consider human psychology and mental development is heavily influenced by
the genetic sciences. We now understand the importance to inherited characteristics more than
ever before. Yet we are still unable to decide whether an individual’ s personality and
development are more influenced by genetic factors (nature) or by the environment (nurture).
Research, relating to identical twins, has highlighted how significant inherited characteristics can
be for an individual’ s life. But whether these characteristics are able to develop within the
personality of an individual surely depends on whether the circumstances allow such a
development. It seems that the experiences we have in life are so unpredictable and so powerful,
that they can boost or over-ride other influences, and there seems to be plenty of research finding
s to confirm this.
My own view is that there is no one major influence in a person’ s life. Instead, the traits we
inherit from our parents and the situations and experiences that we encounter in life are
constantly interacting. It is the interaction of the two that shapes a person’ s personality and
dictates ow that personality develops. If this were not true, then we would be able to predict the
behavior and character of a person form the moment they were born.
In conclusion, I do not think that either nature or nurture is the major influence on a person, but
that both have powerful effects. How these factors interact is still unknown today and they
remain largely unpredictable in a person s life.
 CHANGES
Some people prefer to spend their lives doing the same things and avoiding change. Others,
however, think that change is always a good thing. Discuss both these views and give your
own opinion.

Over the last half century the pace of change in the life of human beings has increased beyond
our wildest expectations. This has been driven by technological and scientific breakthroughs that
are changing the whole way we view the world on an almost daily basis. This means that change
is not always a personal option, but an inescapable fact of life, and we need to constantly adapt to
keep pace with it.
Those people who believe they have achieved some security by doing the same, familiar things
are living in denial. Even when people believe they are resisting change themselves, they cannot
stop the world around them from changing. Sooner or later they will find that the familiar jobs no
longer exist, or that the ‘safe’ patterns of behavior are no longer appropriate.
However, reaching the conclusion that change is inevitable is not the same as assuming that
‘change is always for the better’ . Unfortunately, it is not always the case that new things are
promoted. They have good impacts for the majority of people. A lot of innovations are made with
the aim of making money for a few. This is because it is the rich and powerful people in our
society who are able to impose changes (such as in working conditions or property
developments) that are in their own interests.
In conclusion, I would say that change can be stimulating and energizing for individuals when
they pursue it themselves, but that all change, including that which is imposed on people, does
not necessarily have good outcomes.
 NURTURE
It is generally believed that some people are born with certain talents, for instance for sport
or music, and others are not. However, it is sometimes claimed that any child can be taught
to become a good sports person or musician. Discuss both these views and give your own
opinion.

This model has been prepared by an examiner as an example of a very good answer.
The relative importance of natural talent and training is a frequent topic of discussion when
people try to explain different levels of ability in, for example, sport, art or music.
Obviously, education systems are based on the belief that all children can effectively be taught to
acquire different skills, including those associated with sport, art or music. So from our own
school experience, we can find plenty of evidence to support the view that a child can acquire
these skills with continued teaching and guided practice.
However, some people believe that innate talent is what differentiates a person who has been
trained to play a sport or an instrument, from those who become good players. In other words,
there is more to the skill than a learned technique, and this extra talent cannot be taught, no
matter how good the teacher or how frequently a child practices.
I personally think that some people do have talents that are probably inherited via their genes.
Such talents can give individuals a facility for certain skills that allow them to excel, while more
hard-working students never manage to reach a comparable level. But, as with all questions of
nature versus nurture, they are not mutually exclusive. Good musicians or artists and exceptional
sports stars have probably succeeded because of both good training and natural talent. Without
the natural talent, continuous training would be neither attractive nor productive, and without the
training, the child would not learn how to exploit and develop their talent.
In conclusion, I agree that any child can be taught particular skills, but to be rally good in areas
such as music, art or sport, then some natural talent is required.
 PETROL PRICE
Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution
problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think
might be effective?

This model has been prepared by an examiner as an example of a very good answer.
There is no doubt that traffic and pollution from vehicles have become huge problems, both in
cities and on motorways everywhere. Solving these problems is likely to need more than a simple
rise in the price of petrol.
While it is undeniable that private car use is one of the main causes of the increase in traffic and
pollution, higher fuel costs are unlikely to limit the number of drivers for long. As this policy
would also affect the cost of public transport, it would be very unpopular with everyone who
needs to travel on the roads. But there are various other measures that could be implemented that
would have a huge effect on these problems.
I think to tackle the problem of pollution, cleaner fuels need to be developed. The technology is
already available to produce electric cars that would be both quieter and cleaner to use.
Persuading manufacturers and travellers to adopt this new technology would be a more effective
strategy for improving air quality, especially in cities.
However, traffic congestion will not be solved by changing the type of private vehicle people can
use. To do this, we need to improve the choice of public transport services available to travellers.
For example, if sufficient sky trains and underground train systems were built and effectively
maintained in our major cities, then traffic on the roads would be dramatically reduced. Long-
distance train and coach services should be made attractive and affordable alternatives to driving
your own car for long journeys.
In conclusion, I think that long-term traffic and pollution reductions would depend on educating
the public to use public transport more, and on governments using public money to construct and
run efficiently.
 PUBLIC HEALTH
Some people say that the best way to improve public health is by increasing the number of
sports facilities. Others, however, say that this would have little effect on public health and
that other measures are required. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

This model has been prepared by an examiner as an example of a very good answer.
A problem of modern societies is the declining level of health in the general population, with
conflicting views on how to tackle this worrying trend. One possible solution is to provide more
sports facilities to encourage a more active lifestyle.
Advocates of this believe that today’ s sedentary lifestyle and stressful working conditions mean
that physical activity is no longer part of either our work or our leisure time. If there were easy-
to-reach local sports that could be offered would cater for all ages, levels of fitness and interests:
those with painful memories of PE at school might be happier in the swimming pool than on the
football pitch.
However, there may be better ways of tackling this problem. Interest in sport is not universal, and
additional facilities might simply attract the already fit, not those who most need them. Physical
activity could be encouraged relatively cheaply, for example by installing exercise equipment in
parks, as my local council has done. This has the added benefit that parents and children often use
them together just for fun, which develops a positive attitude to exercise at an early age.
As well as physical activity, high tax penalties could be imposed on high-fat food products,
tobacco and alcohol, as excessive consumption of any of these contributes to poor health. Even
improving public transport would help: it takes longer to walk to the bus stop than to the car.
In my opinion, focusing on sports facilities is too narrow an approach and would not have the
desired results. People should be encouraged not only to be more physically active but also adopt
a healthier lifestyle in general.
 GOVERNMENT FUND
All education and healthcare should be funded by the government and free for everyone.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Healthcare and education are both essential services that can be extremely expensive and, as a
result, unaffordable for those on a limited budget. Nevertheless, it is important to establish just
who is responsible for funding them. The health of a country's citizens is vitally important,
without adequate healthcare, people of all ages can become extremely ill and thus unable to earn
a living or take care of themselves. So it is essential for governments to provide well-equipped
hospitals as well as highly trained staff to run them. There is also a need for appropriate
emergency services. Furthermore, without a good public education system, people may find they
are limited in their work choices. If education is not provided free to all. those born Into poverty
may find themselves unable to rise above that level.
We may all wish for these essential services to be provided free of charge, but the government
needs to obtain the funds for them from somewhere. Even when they are provided free of charge,
there has to be some way of recouping the costs. One way of acquiring the necessary funds Is by
Imposing taxes. Alternatively, access to welfare can be means-tested and based on personal levels
of income. The Irony Is that, in democratic societies, where a government Is elected based on its
promises, It Is often the political party that promises tax cuts that is elected to office.
It seems clear that poorer members of our society need this type of aid and If these costs are
covered, at least partially, by the government, then we need to accept that our taxes will be used
to fund them.
 CHILD PUNISHMENT
It is important for children to learn the difference between right and wrong at an early age.
Punishment is necessary to help them learn this distinction. To what extent do you agree or
disagree with this opinion?

One important stage in a child’ s growth is certainly the development of a conscience, which is
linked to the ability to tell right from wrong. This skill comes with time and good parenting, and
my firm conviction is that punishment does not have much of a role to play in this. Therefore I
have to disagree almost entirely with the given statement.
To some extent the question depends on the age of the child. To punish a very young child is both
wrong and foolish, as an infant will not understand what is happening or why he or she is being
punished. Once the age of reason is reached however, a child can be rewarded for good behaviour
and discouraged from bad. This kind but firm approach will achieve more than harsh
punishments, which might entail many negative consequences unintended by the parents.
To help a child learn the difference between right and wrong, teachers and parents should firstly
provide good role modelling in their own behavior. After that, if sanctions are needed, the
punishment should not be of a physical nature, as that merely sends the message that it is
acceptable for larger people to hit smaller ones- an outcome which may well result in the child
starting to bully others. Nor should the punishment be in any way cruel.
Rather, teachers and parents can use a variety of methods to discipline their young charges, such
as detention, withdrawal of privileges, and time-out. Making the punishment fit the crime is a
useful notion, which would see children being made to pick up rubbish they have dropped, clean
up graffiti they have drawn, or apologize to someone they have hurt. In these ways responsibility
is developed in the child, which leads to much better future behaviour than does punishment.
 OBESITY
Obesity is now a major global epidemic. What can be done to tackle this increasingly
common problem?

Obesity is now one of the main causes of preventable death, especially in industrialised countries.
To tackle this problem, governments can reduce the impact of their overweight ciri7ens by the
careful use of taxation to fund alternatives to a sedentary lifestyle. However, individuals should
also take responsibility for their own health by avoiding a bad diet and taking the initiative to
participate in sport.
It is important for governments to act quickly to curb obesity because of the rising death rate.
There will also be rising costs in healthcare and the benefits system if it is left unchecked. To
combat this problem, governments should, first of all, heavily tax junk food and use the revenue
generated to subsidise healthy fruit and vegetables. This would make healthy food cheaper and
more widely available than unhealthier options. Also, the government can act by funding leisure
centres, sports clubs and gyms. This money could be used to help people gain motivation to
exercise and become more active.
On the other hand, there are those who claim that obesity is due to lifestyle choice and therefore
an individual problem, not one for the government. They claim that people should find their own
motivation to prevent obesity by being aware of the potentially fatal consequences of their
lifestyles. Individuals could also change their diets by switching from a carbohydrate- heavy diet
to one which includes a balance of vitamins and minerals. Joining a sports club need not always
be the only way to lose weight. Even vigorous housework or heavy gardening can help avert
heart disease.
In conclusion, although individuals may be able to help themselves by changing their diets and
activities, it may require government intervention to tackle obesity quickly and on a large scale.
 SOCIAL MEDIA
Whoever controls the media also controls opinions and attitudes of the people and there is
little that can be done to rectify this. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In some countries, the media is controlled exclusively by large companies; in others it is the
government that has this control. Often, in a war situation, one of the first casualties is the media,
which is seized by one group or another. This gives some support to the idea that the media is a
source of power and control.
Whoever controls the media also has ultimate control over what is published or broadcasted and
what is omitted.
They can also add a certain prejudice or bias to their coverage of certain news stories depending
on their own feelings about the matter. This is not a new problem, although the issue is perhaps
more pressing now that the Internet and pay-TV have enabled these messages to be disseminated
even further.
However, we should remember that readers have their own ideas and opinions. You can control
what is printed but you cannot control the opinions of your readers. I think the only positive here
is that, nowadays, people seem to be much more cynical about what they read in the press or hear
on the television. In particular, when it comes to the tabloid press, people know that they have to
take what they read with a grain of salt. In other words, they read knowing they may be being lied
to. Perhaps it is of even greater concern that we have become so accepting of this form of
censorship.
The only thing that can be done to alter this situation is for the government to regulate the
industry so that there is no longer a monopoly on media ownership. This also means that they
have to allow and support a totally free press, even if this means the government may be
criticised or ridiculed within its pages.
 TOURISM
Tourism has increased so much over the last 50 years that it is having a mainly negative
impact on local inhabitants and the environment. However, others claim that it is good for
the economy. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of tourism and give your own
opinion.

Whether or not tourist destinations benefit from international tourism is a debatable issue. To
some governments, the local economic benefits are worth the overcrowding and hiked prices of
the tourist season. However, there are environmental and social costs and other risks of relying on
tourism as a major source of annual income.
Sleepy coastal communities can be changed beyond recognition by mass-market tourism.
Package holiday companies operate huge numbers of low-cost flights to high-rise hotels in
developing countries every summer.
This means, of course, that easy money can be had servicing this seasonal influx and the
government sees increased tax revenue and local employment. However, when the tourist season
comes to an end, employment ceases and the area becomes a ghost town. The social cohesion of a
small community can also be blighted by the seasonal migration of people to the cities to look for
work out of season, leaving only the elderly behind. This is perhaps made worse by second home
owners, who drive up house prices beyond the means of local inhabitants.
On the other hand, the local community do gain language skills and other fringe benefits of
cultural exchange. Such a large volume of travellers every year can cause environmental
problems to fragile habitats and historical sites. Age-old stone remains can be worn away and
traditional buildings demolished in favour of bland international hotels. Local infrastructure can
also fail to cope with large numbers of visitors, leading to pollution and litter. However, over
time this can change as the economy improves and tourism becomes more of an established
industry. Local government investment in infrastructure should ensure repeat trade and further
benefits for the economy.
Overall, tourism can be a good source of income for countries blessed with natural beauty or sites
of historical interest. However, governments must ensure that the wishes of local businesses are
not put before the needs of the local community and that any revenue generated by tourism is
reinvested in the area to protect the local environment.