RTC Essay topic: with answers

1. There are many different types of music in the world today. What do we need music? Is the
traditional music of a country more important than the international music that is heard
everywhere nowadays?
No one can deny that, different type of music has been increasing markedly a round the world.
Some people put forward the view that, traditional music is one of the most important than
international music, but others say that international music is more up to date and young
generation all around the word interested in. lets discussed both side of this issues.
First of all, regardless the type of music, listen to music is one of the most entertainment for
people all around the word. As it can be seen that, over 50% of people prefer fills their leisure
time with music. Because, they think its essential for their nerve and have a positive effect on
their behavior. Now a days, music divided two types : traditional music and international music
such as rock music, pop music, etc. Traditional music is not well known as international music in
the word. More over, investment for traditional music dont enough in comparison, international
music.
On the other hand, different type of music have different advocate. For instance, international
music are more interested in by young generation , because its more attractive and fashionable , a
lot of sings performance by famous singers. For example, international music have especial clubs
for young people who are keen on singers, due to this reasons traditional music would not
competitive whit the international music. traditional music are supported whit elderly and middle
aged generation so we dont have attractive advertising about it. Furthermore, its not enough
only use traditional music in specific places such as museum, art galleries, relaxation classes,
such as back ground music.
In conclusion, as we all are aware, traditional music is part of our culture and, like other valuable
heritage we should preserve this art for next generations.

From http://ielts-simon.com/

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, peoples
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.
(261 words, band 9)

From http://www.angloenglish.com/AngloEnglish_BandView.html
Model writing of our participant who scored BAND 8 in Writing )


The day the world was created, music was born. Nature has wonderful rhythms and sound
which cannot be matched to anything in this world. The sound of recurring waves of the sea,
the flow of the river, voice of the cuckoo all have been a great influence on man kind. Music
has grown into human beings over years, shaped by various improvements, used to depict the
mood of the person who plays it.


International music has under grown a massive reach in the last decade due to better
globalization, communication and shrinking of world. However there have been developments
in traditional music which are more influenced by the culture and tradition of a country. The
reach of music across borders has created a healthy environment and has provided
opportunities for creativity by combining international music and traditional music.


Earlier in the 1980s people heard romantic, soft, western music which has dramatically
changed to rock music now. Hip hop music which were very popular earlier have transcended
and although people love to hear them they have been out fashioned in todays music world.


Traditional music of a country is unique for every country and it has its roots too. They depict
the culture, tradition of the society. For example, in India, every occasion has a music relevant
to the mood. The classical music ragas have specific collection of notes which when sung
during particular time of a day gives peace of mind to body and soul. Not to deny the fact that
the traditional music have undergone changes too. There have been adaptations made from the
international music. The instruments used have been very different and more advanced keeping
in pace with technological advancements. Although they have been changes, the basic structure
of the traditional music remains unique and unchanged.


Research shows that music can heal and cure diseases. They can soothe ones feelings and
relaxes our mind. Every individual has a sense of taste for music, which is very unique. Some
like jazz, rock some classical and some hip hop. Whatever it is music has been one of the major
part time experiences for human beings. Music keeps everyone rejuvenated throughout his life,
which proves its necessity.


Traditional music and International music are two different things all together. It is very
important for both of them to exist, more for the former, because it gives the sense of the
tradition, culture and is more than just an art. In this ever changing world it becomes imperative
that our future generations get to know about the traditional music which is more native of the
country. Hence I feel traditional music is more important than international music.

From http://anath2writing.blogspot.com/2014/01/ielts-sample-essays-academic-paper.html
Throughout the history, music has been being an essential part of human's life. People can hear
music everywhere, especially the international music. Although the international music has been
popular, traditional music still plays an important role in our lives. In my opinion, both
traditional music and international music are important and they have brought to our lives their
own benefits.

Music has been heard for a long time, since the first instrument was invented from the rock.
Music has brought fun to people from the sunrise of humankind. Listening to music helps us
relax and reduce stress after a hard working day. It is a wonderful feeling when come back home
from work, lay my back on the sofa and enjoy my favourite songs with some drink. Furthermore,
music makes people closer when listen together, share their feelings and enjoy the songs.

There are many different types of music that people would like to listen such as pop, rock, jazz,
R&B, etc.. Globalization and the development of the internet allow people to enjoy music from
many countries around the world. Moreover, the international music is not only enjoy by people,
but also it indicates an aspect of the culture of the country which the singer or the song belongs
to. In addition, listening to music makes people around the world closer. For example, when we
listen to the songs "Heal the world" or "We are the world" sung by "King of the pop" Michael
Jackson, we feel that there is no boundary between us though we come from many different
countries.

On the other hand, traditional music remains an important role in our lives, traditional music
makes us know more about our national culture. Many meaning songs make us more proud of
our country. In addition, an important meaning of traditional music is the lullaby. Every mother
lulls their children to sleep by their traditional songs. This can not do by the international music.

To sum up, each kind of music, traditional music and international music have their own role in
our lives and they are both important to our lives for a long time in the future.




Some people think that music brings benefits to individuals and societies. Others, however
think that music can have a negative influence on both.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
The pros and cons of music for individuals is a topic which has aroused enormous controversy
among the general public. Some people argue that music has adversely affected
individuals'minds and society. However, another group believe that music is the part of culture
of every society. It gives many benefits to people and societies.

In my point of view, music is most popular and ancient mode of human expression. Its the basic
form of art and strongly connected to culture of every society. We cannot denied from the value
of music, it has taken important part in people'life and society.

Some people hold the opinion that, there are various drawbacks of music. Nowadays, the
standard of music and songs is not high as in the past. The language used in lyrics of some songs
is very cheap and meaningless. If individuals started listening low quality music and songs then
these cheap songs would inevitably affect on their minds. As mentioned above, music is strongly
connected to culture of every society, due to cheap music and meaningless songs, the youngsters
will get bad impression of their culture. Moreover, in recent years, loud music is more popular
than soft and classic music which will only increase noise pollution in society and gives tension
to people rather than relax individuals'minds.

Supporters of music believe that, there are various benefits of music. First of all, music is the
famous and historic way to show your culture and tradition to other societies. Nowadays, young
generation can get knowledge of old culture and tradition from music. In other words, in every
society music is the basic way to transfer their culture from one generation to next. Secondly,
many therapies have been introduced which use music to treat many physical and psychological
diseases. Such as, music is used in the therapies to hypnotise and also relax a stressful mind.
Moreover, in recent years the youngsters have chose music not only as a hobby, but its the best
way for them to earn money. Many people were famous due to music in the past.

In conclusion, we cannot separate music from our culture and society. the solution of drawbacks
is, the government should needs to open appropriate music academies which will give complete
knowledge of music. The educationalist should need to start classes of music in schools which
will give information of history of music.

2. Should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth with poorer nations by
providing them with things such as food and education? Or is this the responsibility of the
governments of poorer nations to look after their citizens?
I think that wealthy nations should be required to share their wealth with poorer nations. But
their helping should only stop at providing such things as food and education because of the
three following reasons.
Firstly, citizens of both wealthy nations and poorer nations are human beings. Therefore, we can
not look at, hear of, or talk about people who lack food, education, etc without compassion
and sympathy. Sharing wealth with poorer nations is not only a good deed but is also a task .
Secondly, many nations in Africa and Asia are very very poor. Famine, diseases, crime and
illiteracy are killing the citizens of these countries. In the contrary, many nations in Europe and
America are too rich. If there are no actions taken, this inequality will increase dramatically.
Poor countries will become more and more poorer while rich countries will become more and
more richer. As a result, the poorest countries will become slaves of the richest countries. So,
sharing wealth is an useful way to prevent people from that bad future.
Thirdly, although sharing wealth with poorer nations is very necessary but this help should only
stop at providing such things as food, medicine and education. Or else, poor nations may become
dependent on the aid. They may lose enthusiasm to build their countries by themselves.
Moreover, rich nations can take advantage of sharing wealth to interfere with the governance of
poor nations. This cant be considered a humane action and should be prevented.
In my opinion, sharing wealth with poorer nations has both a bad side and a good side. What we
have to do is avoiding its bad side and practicing its good side.
This is an excellent essay, your arguments are convincing and very well presented. There are
only a few minor mistakes, please read and consider the comments. Well done!
From http://www.testbig.com/ielts-essays/
In modern world the level of economic development of countries depends on many factors and it
strongly differs from each other. As a result of this difference, countries can be classified as
developed, developing and poorer countries.
Nowadays it is a subject of discussion if wealthy nations must share their wealth, such as food
and education among poorer nations or if there is no need for this at all. A different view claims
that looking after them is the responsibility of their own government.
In my opinion, the government of wealthy nations must help poorer countries and I can explain
my position based on some facts. Firstly, we must take into consideration that natural conditions
of countries may be different, and as it is the main factor of development, some countries are
innocent for their poverty. So other countries can help them to improve their conditions and
develop.
Secondly, we can add that the aim of all countries must be to preserve the whole world, and
make all people live in good, healthy and educational condition .Thus, it seems to be very
important helping each other, and share their wealth.
In addition, we can exemplify some poor countries which cannot develop themselves as for
example, some African countries .There is a great necessity to help them and we can enumerate
some international organizations and wealthy countries which already help them.
However, it should be noted that, it does not mean that the own government of poorer countries
must do nothing, they must also do their best to provide satisfactory living standards for their
citizens.
To sum up, I think if all wealthy countries share their resources , wealth and education with other
poorer countries , this may cause improvement of living conditions of all countries and help them
live in prosperity.

From http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic14265.html

With the development of global economic, more and more people have a better life than
decades ago. However, in some area of world, there also have poorer countries where
people don't have sufficient food to eat or education. I think that, not only should wealthy
country help poor country, but poor country should try their best to give their citizens a
better quality of life.

Helping poorer countries is demand of moral, but also there are many benefits from it. First
of all, providing assistant to these countries could save many lives from starvation, and
keep them away from diseases, therefore people in the poorer country could enjoy a better
life. Furthermore, this could help them to have enough energy to develop their country, and
then providing food and education by themselves. Eventually, they would be able to
cooperate with wealthy countries to benefit each other.

To poorer country, besides being assisted by others, they have to take responsibility of
developing their own country for better quality of citizens' life. However, some use the
resources provided by others in a wrong way, such as taking the money to buy weapons,
food to support the war. They should stop doing this, and to develop in peace. In addition,
improving their stability of society, such as perfecting their laws, providing job
opportunities, developing technology, is a important task for them.

Therefore, it's wrong to say that one country should take the whole responsibility of that.
Countries in the world should help each other to have a better development, by doing this,
countries can benefit from each other also.
From http://www.expatforum.com/expats/australia-expat-forum-expats-living-australia/348273-
who-above-8-band-each-secton-ielts-6.html
The responsibility to take care of the poor have always been a hot debated issue. Some argue that
this welfare responsibility lies on wealthy nations while the others argue that the care should be taken
by the government of the poor nations themselves. Its agreed that the rich nations should extend
their support to poor nations. Considering the impact of improvement in the poor nations on economy
of wealthy ones as well as on strengthening of political standing of wealthy nations will prove this
point.

An educated nations helps a wealthy nation more than it benefits itself. For example, yearly profit of
China from exports to Pakistan is far higher than the annual profit of Pakistan itself.A well educated
Pakistani national can help strengthen economy of China before he help himself or his family.A report
issued by 'The NewYork times ' in 1999 clearly demonstrated that the profit, advanced world earns
from developing world is far higher than the profit of developing countries themselves. Additionally,
the aid provided in education programs of destitute is hundred times lower than the benefits reaped.
Thus, it is clear why helping the poorer is more beneficial to rich countries.

A healthy nation give far higher return to an advanced country. For example, the education
performance index of a healthy nation as well as a healthy person is always higher than any other
weak nation and weak person. Brazil, although has same education infrastructure like Pakistan,
perform much higher in their education performance than Pakistan.A healthy person, clearly,
demonstrated better performance than a weak and diseased person. A report published by
Washington post openly demonstrates that a healthy student performs better than a weak person,
which in turns grows a stronger and wealthy nations.There is no other opinion that health status of
any nation is the best input to have excellent results in any other area of concern. Thus, the emphasis
on education can easily be understood.

After analyzing both sides its crystal clear why the advanced nations should help the poor nations.
This practice, taken as responsibility will eventually strengthen wealthy nations in turn. Thus, it highly
recommended that the advanced world should help the poor countries.
Your vocabulary and coherence and cohesion is sufficient. You can further improve on task
achievement. There are number of grammar mistakes and if you can correct those, you can easily go
above 7+ with this essay.

Your points are not very logical in some places. For an example "the profit, advanced world earns from
developing world is far higher than the profit of developing countries". This line indicates that it is
better for developed countries to do business with developing countries?? If so why would developed
countries help the developing countries to develop at all? This is not a big thing, but the essay could
be more logically structured and you can get more marks in Task Achievement.

To get full marks for the task achievement, you need to analyse the question carefully and answer
exactly what it is asking.
3. News editors decide what to broadcast on television and what to print in newspaper.
What factors do you think influence these decisions? Do we become used to bad news?
Would it be better if more good news was reported?

News agencies are considered as sources of disseminating news and information
instantly and effectively. No one can argue about the importance of newspaper and TV
for gathering information, however, the reliability and unbiasedness of news agencies
are often questioned by many.

Being an organization, there is always someone who monitor the activities of media
house. The monitoring of what is to be published in paper and what is to be displayed on
screen is usually done by news editors. What news editors choose for public depends on
the organization interest, personal interest and level of social responsibilities that the
editors assume.

One case I remember is that a local TV broadcasted news of its reporters being beaten
severely by protesters and their vehicle being destroyed on the same time. The next day
lots of local people raised question mark on TV since, on that day, local people had
saved the reporters and their vehicle unscathed. This is one of the so many incidence
which leads us to think about lack of trustworthiness, social responsibilities and
journalism ethics in news editor.

The news that news editor selects is also dependent on the political inclination of media
house. It is very common in our country to see difference in opinion and importance
among the organizations.

In my opinion 'good' and 'bad' are not the classification of news. News are just absolute
information. The intention, interest and presentation of journalist make the same news
'bad' and 'good'. Because of increased of TV and newspaper, provocative, defaming and
biased news are also increasing which is, for sure, a negative impact for our society.
Such practices must be discouraged by the government.

At last I would like to say that political interest and specific organizational strategy are
acceptable but news editor should be unbiased and most importantly should bear some
social responsibilities. There are good examples of broadcasters like BBC and CNN
which are known for their reliability and accuracy.

This is clearly far below your overall level. Your grade is an average of Vocabulary,
Grammar, Task Response, and Coherence/Cohesion. It would be disappointing to have a very
good grade for Vocabulary or Grammar and then only a Band 5 or worse for coherence.


From http://www.essayforum.com/writing-3/news-editors-broadcast-print-mixture-
38856/

What to broadcast on television and what to print in newspapers, good news or bad news, all is
decided by news editors.

It is said that "no news is good news". There are two types of news; good news & bad
news.Television & newspapers are the resources of current information. All the news depends
on the circumstances of the country. News editors are just playing their role. They are not a
story teller who can make any news good or bad.They are just informer or presenter who keep
the citizens up-to-date through those news which they collect from the real events. But
occasionally some facts influence these decisions like; the strong Politicians, Political parties &
government who can pressurize them to hide the reality from the citizens by hook or by crook. If
there is dictatorship in the country, then obviously news editors will follow the dictator. But if
there is democracy, then media will be free.

Mostly news are related to the law agencies, their do's & don'ts, government authorities, their
policies, political parties, current affairs, sports, traffic & violent citizens etc. And all these things
to keep in order is the responsibility of government & judiciary who are the most important pillars
of the country & who runs it.

Now question is that are we used to bad news? & is it better to be reported good news mostly?
And the answer is that after receiving bad news on the trot, we become immune, then news lost
its charm. people avoid to heard or read those type of news & mostly spend their time on other
activities. It can also make the citizens hopeless. Similarly, it is not better to be reported good
news all the time because it can give people wrong impression. It may happen that the news
editors will be blamed that they are playing a foul game.

In short, excess of everything is bad. News editors should broadcast & print a mixture of good
and bad news. They should be broad minded not narrow minded. They shouldn't present bad
news in a negative way. They should spread the optimism not the pessimism through television
or newspapers among the citizens.

Note: Just take ideas only

From: http://www.testbig.com/ielts-essays
News in this world has a great impact on public and world's dependency,
interests are increasing highly towards newspapers and television. Media
is gaining popularity day by day because it is approaching to every part of
the world and satisfying the needs of different persons.
News provide us information about latest events, current affairs,
international and national occasions, means different types of news are
available in the market. This fast progress gave media ways to create
more news for getting more benefit and for fulfilling this ambition news
editors are said to edit only those news who are liked by public and earn
them more profits.
Even majority of audience wants to read or watch gossips than real
topics, this helped in the arrival of bad news which are damaging our
culture, society, ethical values, etc. From decades, public is interested in
knowing the bad side of a news more than the good side, this is also
made a trend for today's existing newspapers to provide more attractive
news in public.
News editing is done in a matter of providing more bad than good
gossips, also publican's interest in bad news and even the competition
faced by newspapers or television for more popularity resulted in the
arrival of bad news on the screen.
I think we are adapted to read or watch more disgusting news than good
ones and even if we search for good views in the newspapers we find only
the bad news. Now, our eyes love to read news about something bad
happening.
Although, bad news gives us information about how the bad
circumstances can be created by the mistakes of people but doesn't
inform us, how to tackle this kind of problems, shows us the bad impact
of any thing, organisation on us, on environment but doesn't provide
advice for safety.
Moreover, it just lets us see the cause and highlights the impact of a
problem but doesn't give us any solution of problems such news are not
right to be given in public as it shows only the wrong side. Thus, it is
better to have more good news in our papers and on television that can
guide us to do good things, can give us nice ideas to live a better life and
overcome the influence of bad news.

From http://tutorialielts.blogspot.com/2013/12/
Nowadays, news editors have started resorting to objectively selecting material to be presented on
televisions, or printed in newspapers. Many people judge the selective approach of editors as
unwarranted and unacceptable. They always question the relevance of elements that influence inclusions
and exclusions. Editors are however, while choosing news; need to take into account many aspects like
professional aspirations and the commercial compulsions. Commercial compulsions come into play when
the new agencies aspire to create a niche for themselves by generating a good TRP and readership in
the contemporary markets.

The rapidly increasing inclination of new reporting organizations towards reporting distressing news
having capability of creating sensations, has lead to creation of a strange trend among the viewers and
the readers, who have developed a taste for knowing more and more about distressing events and
happenings. Gaining knowledge about fateful happenings has become a staple requirement of keen news
hunters. These people switch on their televisions and open their new papers to view and read about
unpleasant events.

To get over inclination for bad news, some sections of society advocate production and printing of news
about pleasant happenings. As per them, an overdose of reports about disturbing incidents has resulted
in creating unhappy sentiments and atmosphere in the society. They feel that reporting pleasant news
would surely help in raining back the dipping moods.

On contrary, some people feel, presenting more pleasant news snippets would not help in removing
hopelessness. As per them, the primary obligation of editors is to present important news as it is, whether
it is good or bad. Moreover, as per them, just increasing the amount of good news would not wipe out
disturbing incidents.


In conclusion, I feel news should be presented impartially and without taking their nature into account.