In some countries, governments are encouraging industries and

businesses to move to regional areas outside the big cities. Do the

advantages of this trend outweigh the disadvantages?
Model essay
With the dramatic increase in population globally, a challenge faced by many big
cities is insufficient land space. Governments have been providing incentives for
people to relocate to regional areas. However, none of these seem to solve the
issue of congestion. The problem lies in employment, as people prefer to live
close to work. By encouraging industries and businesses to move to regional
areas, lots of benefits will be achieved.
Industries and businesses are the main drivers of economy. With their existence in
regional areas, people will be attracted to move out of big cities. These people get better
chances to secure jobs in a less competitive environment. As more people in rural areas
get employed, their spending power increases. A chain effect then takes place, attracting
more businesses to meet the demand in these areas. Apart from that, with industries
and businesses moving out of cities, the cities become more liveable. The
decrease in congestion, vehicular traffic, pollution, and competition allows city
folks to live a less stressful lifestyle.
On the flip side, industries and businesses may face some challenges during
early stages of transition. Moving to an area with low demand will not be
profitable for them. However, there is a way around this. Businesses can still
have offices in cities to develop business, while relocating their plants and
manufacturing facilities to regional areas. What is more, building or renting
facilities in regional areas are much cheaper.
All in all, the advantages of relocating industries and businesses to regional
areas clearly outweigh any drawbacks. As long as businesses are willing to
adapt, communities in big cities and regional areas will benefit from this change
as well.
Should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth among poorer
nations by providing such things as food and education. Or is it the
responsibility of the governments of the poorer nations to look after their
citizens themselves?
Our world is mainly divided into two types of countries – developed and
developing (underdeveloped). I opine that while governments of developing
countries are responsible for their citizens, developed countries too can
contribute their bit.
To begin with, the world should be considered as a family. Because all the
countries share the same natural resources, problems created by one nation can
affect another. For example, if the developing countries add serious level of
pollution to the environment, the resultant global warming will affect developed
countries as well. Hence, if developed nations share technical know-how and
other useful information with developing nations, some global issues can be
effectively tackled.
Furthermore, people who are starving for basic necessities can threaten the
peace of the world. We cannot deny the fact that humans have some basic
necessities such as food and shelter and non-availability of these can lead them
to invade the places which are rich and prosperous. This situation can even
culminate in wars. For example, people from some developing countries always
try to enter developed nations in search of a better future. This creates conflicts
between them. We have recently seen problems of refugee camps near France
border which is created by the people affected by Syrian crises. Therefore, if the
developed world takes care of underdeveloped nations, peace can be
established.
Moreover, the value of aid that poor nations receive is much higher than its cost
for rich nations. Developed world uses their wealth in luxury and non-basic
amenities which are not necessities. Alternatively, if the same wealth is
expended for providing food and education in developing nations, it will be
worthier. For example, countries like USA can cut some spending on
entertainment and deploy it for providing food and education in some countries in
Africa.
In conclusion, wealthy nations should consider themselves as care takers and
provide maximum support for basic necessities such as food and education in
developing countries.
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 your own opinion.
People have different views about the purpose of museums in modern society.
While it’s true that museum – as tourist attractions – should be fascinating, I
stand by the idea that the main role of the museum is to give knowledge of
cultural, religious and historical importance.
On the one hand, it can be argued that museums should be entertaining and
more attractive to the public. Museums are widely considered as important tourist
attractions of any cities or countries. However, there’s a common belief that they
are too elitist, uninspiring and only encourage educated people to visit. By adding
more entertainment values, museums can appeal to a broader audience.
Nowadays there is also a wide range of museums which do not have academic
purpose; but more light-hearted and humorous theme; for example; chocolate
museum in Belgium, kimchi museum in South Korea, museum of Broken
Relationships in Croatia or cheese museum in The Netherlands.
On the other hand, I strongly believe that the main purpose of museums is to
educate people as they exhibit collections of interesting objects that hold great
cultural or historical values. The aim of any exhibitions is to teach visitors things
that they didn’t know before. To achieve that, museums usually offer free guided
tours with professional guides or give away brochures, guidebooks, audio tapes
that contain detailed information about the exhibitions. By doing that, museums
should play an important role in teaching people about history, culture, science
and many other aspects of life.
In conclusion, I think museums, as educational institutions, should offer
educative, interesting and enjoyable experiences to visitors.
Some people believe that the best way to increase road safety is to
increase the minimum legal age for driving cars.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Sample essay
Some individuals believe that increasing the minimum legal age for driving cars
or motor bikes is the best way to increase road safety. While I admit that this
policy can be beneficial to some extent, in my opinion, there are better ways to
reduce traffic accidents.
It might be a good idea to increase the minimum age requirement for driving for
some reasons. Firstly, younger people are less mature and less responsible.
They might not be aware of the importance of following traffic rules. Therefore, it
makes sense to ban them from driving to prevent them from breaking the law and
causing accidents. Secondly, as older people are more experienced, they know
how to react quickly to dangerous situations on the road. To illustrate, if the
brakes of a car suddenly stop working, a young driver might panic and accidents
could occur. An experienced driver will be able to handle the situation with more
maturity.
However, I would argue that there are much better ways to ensure road safety.
The first one is to improve the quality of our roads. Accidents are less likely to
occur on wider, bump-free roads. It is also important to have stricter punishments
for careless drivers. For example, people who break traffic rules should be
required to pay huge fines or be banned permanently from getting behind the
wheel. Strict laws will encourage drivers to respect the law and traffic accidents
will reduce. Another solution is to encourage people to use public transport rather
than private vehicles. This can be done by reducing the fares and increasing the
frequency of buses and tubes to make it convenient for the users.
In conclusion, I believe that increasing the legal age for driving is not the best
solution for improving road safety. It might help, but we need to take other
measures too. For example, building better roads and improving the efficiency of
public transport will deliver better results.

Essay topic
Some people think that it is better to educate boys and girls in separate
schools. Others, however, believe that boys and girls benefit more from
attending mixed schools. Discuss both these views and give your own
opinion.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your
own knowledge or experience.
Sample response
Throughout the history, there has always been a gender gap. Only in recent
years have we started ‘breaking the walls’ between the genders. Even so, it is
still a hot topic whether there should be mixed-gender schools or not.
From my perspective, boys and girls have much to learn from each other.
Therefore, they should study together. In this essay, I am going to discuss the
benefits and drawbacks of mixed-gender and single-gender schools.
To begin with, we live in a world full of different nationalities, races, genders, and
cultures. It is important for an individual to treat everyone around them with
respect. That is why we need mixed-sex education. It will help children to
understand each other’s uniqueness and provide them with the opportunity to
acquire interpersonal skills.
On the flip side, single-sex schools focus on gender-specific activities like knitting
or cooking for girls and mechanics, electronics or carpentry for boys.
Consequently, graduates from this type of institutions will have greater skills and
knowledge in those activities. That, potentially, can provide them with benefits in
their careers. For instance, a girl who learned cooking or designing at school can
easily become a professional cook or a designer when she grows up.
To recapitulate, both types of educational systems have their advantages and
disadvantages. Nevertheless, mixed-gender institutions tend to prepare their
graduates to the real world situations better than single-gender schools. It is
essential to remember that every successful person should know how to
interact/communicate with different categories of people. This skill can only be
obtained from a diverse environment such as mixed-sex schools.
Topic:
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?
Student’s essay
Significant climate changes have been observed in many parts of the world.
Some people believe that figuring out a way to adapt to the changing climate
rather than preventing it from happening is the best solution to this problem. In
my opinion, I agree with this statement to some extents. I think people should try
to mitigate the negative effects caused by climate change so that they can live
with it. Meanwhile, they should also take some measures to prevent it from
getting worse.
It is undeniable that it is necessary for people to find a way to live with the
changing climate because it has already happened. We cannot actually prevent
something that has already happened. All people must face the truth that the
changing climate has brought us a variety of negative impacts. For example, the
temperature is increasing and the sea level is rising. Finding a way to mitigate
the demerits of these phenomena is, therefore, critical to human beings. Only in
this way, the development of human society will not be inhibited by the effects of
climate change.
While it is impossible for us to prevent the climate change that has already
happened, it does not mean that we can allow the situation to get worse. People
still need to find out the reason of climate change and try to come up with a
practical solution to prevent it from getting worse. If we only focus on how to
adapt the changes but ignore the problem itself, the change of climate will
become more significant. The more significant has the climate changed, the
more difficult it is for us to deal with it. We have to adopt some measures to
prevent it from being unmitigable. Otherwise, the world may suffer from a
catastrophic consequence.
To conclude, we have to admit the fact that the climate change has already
happened therefore we must find a way to adapt these changes. However, a
series of prevention measures still need to be figured out to avoid the predictable
worse situation in the future.
Essay topic
Some people believe that sport competitions are a source of emotional
stress for young people. Therefore, youth should be banned from
participating in sport competitions. Do you agree or disagree?
The following is an essay submitted by one of our students.
Young people are living under an increasing stress in recent years. Some people
claim that the major source of this pressure is sports competitions. They believe
adolescents should be prevented from participating in those events. However, I
oppose this statement. In my opinion, banning youths from sports events is not
the right solution for this issue.
Preventing teenagers from taking part in sports competitions is not only an
impractical but also a detrimental measure. Sports competition is believed to be
an effective way to inspire young people’s interest on sports. Banning youths
from participating sports competitions may result in the lack of attractiveness on
sports for young people. Many of youths, therefore, may not be able to realise
the importance of doing sports. Consequently, an increasing number of young
people might suffer from a variety of health problems due to the lack of exercise.
Additionally, we are living in an age of cut-throat competitions. Preventing young
people from learning to handle the stress brought by sports competitions may
lead them to be vulnerable to tougher competitions in their future career life.
Furthermore, participating sports competitions is not the major source of youth’s
stress, instead, it is a effective method of releasing stress. In contemporary
society, most of young people are stressed out because their study or work.
Doing sports with others is the easiest way to release their pressure after working
or school hours. During sports competitions, they can cultivate their sense of
teamwork and collaboration. They can also improve their communication skills
and make friends with others. It must be admitted participating competitions will
inevitably result in some extra stress on the participants. Nonetheless, this can
be regarded as a good practice for young people to improve their mental fitness.
To conclude, sports competitions are not the major source of emotional stress for
young people. Therefore, preventing youths from taking part in sports
competitions is not a solution for the stress problem of young people in current
year.
Sample essay
Promotions help boost the morale of employees. Higher positions earn
higher salaries and hence everyone wants to be promoted. Some people
feel that only those employees who have worked for an organization for
several years should be given promotion. I don’t agree with this view. In my
opinion, the time spent in an organization should be just one of the criteria
for determining an employee’s eligibility for promotion.
Employers often believe that employees who have spent a lot of years in an
organization are more likely to be loyal to it. They tend to reward this loyalty with
promotions and rises. I am not against promoting senior employees. However, in
my opinion, new hires too should be promoted if they have the skills and
qualifications.
Just because someone has spent ten or twenty years in an organization, it does
not mean that they are the most competent. Sometimes new employees deliver
better performance than senior employees because they possess more skills and
qualifications. What’s more, a ‘new employee’ may have years of experience in
another organization.
If competent employees are denied promotion because they don’t have years of
experience in the organization, it will affect their morale. Worse, it may
encourage them to quit and join another company that honours talent. Attrition
will only hurt the interests of an organization.
To conclude, in my opinion, employers should consider a variety of factors while
determining an employee’s eligibility for promotion. This includes their
qualifications, special skills and domain expertise. Promotions and rises
encourage employees to work harder. If they are denied promotion in spite of
their hard work and eligibility, they might just quit.
Essay topic
The internet has brought about many changes into our day to day life.
Nowadays we are doing things such as mailing, contacting, banking and
communication much faster. Do these developments have more
advantages than disadvantages?
Sample response
The internet has transformed people’s lives. It has changed the way we
communicate with each other, transact business and access information.
Although the internet has both positive and negative aspects, I believe that its
merits outweigh its demerits.
To begin with, thanks to the internet, people can now contact their friends, family
and colleagues faster and more efficiently than in the past. Most people have
internet connection on their mobile or computer and as a result, they can always
stay connected with their near and dear ones. For example, social networking
applications like WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter allow people to chat and share
videos and other important information. Similarly, through facilities like video
conferencing and webinars people from different parts of the world can now
participate in online conferences which eliminate the need to travel to other
countries and cities for attending such programmes.
Additionally, online shopping and banking have saved people a great deal of time
and effort. People today can sit at home and buy their grocery, books or
household appliances from online sites such as Amazon or eBay and their stuff
will be delivered at home. Moreover, transferring and withdrawing money have
become very easy today with online facilities offered by most banks.
On the other hand, a great deal of offensive and obscene content is available on
the web and children have easy access to them. Many antisocial elements and
terrorist groups like ISIS recruit youngsters through the internet. Internet
addiction is another problem. Many people are now addicted to the internet and
wasting their time. This can affect their career and relationships.
In conclusion, the internet has greatly benefited people in different ways.
Although it has some negative aspects it can be handled efficiently by
implementing proper laws and regulations and through parental supervision.
Essay topic
Some people like to work in a company which offers high salary. Some
others think that it is good to work in a company which offers a good
working atmosphere. What is your opinion? Discuss both the views with
examples.
Sample response
Some people prefer high-paying jobs. Others place more importance on the
quality of the workplace. This is basically a matter of personal preference and I
don’t think that one option is better than the other. It depends on the unique
circumstances of the employee.
In the developing countries many families have a single source of income.
Consequently, they need a well-paying job to take care of their expenses. Also,
in many of these countries, people don’t get any financial support from their
governments. All of these factors encourage them to opt for a job with a higher
salary. Companies also believe that employees will deliver their best
performance when they are offered a good salary.
The situation is somewhat different in the developed world where many families
have multiple sources of income. People in these countries also get a lot of
benefits from their government. Needless to say, they are not concerned about
earning more money; they would rather prefer a good working environment.
There is yet another reason for this preference. The working environment affects
the employees’ performance in many ways. A study conducted by a multinational
company revealed that a good working environment enhances the efficiency of
the employees because it keeps them relaxed. And employees tend to work
better when they are relaxed.
In my opinion, money is as important as the quality of the workplace. After all,
everybody should be able to earn enough to lead a comfortable life. I would like
to work in a company that offers a great working environment and a reasonably
good salary.
Topic
Shopping is becoming more and more popular as a leisure activity.
However, some people feel that this has both positive and negative effects.
Why is shopping so popular?
What effects does its increase in popularity have on individuals and on
society?
Sample response
Thanks to growing consumerism, the number of people who shop for fun and
pleasure is on the rise. This is a direct consequence of intensive marketing
efforts employed by companies. In my opinion, this trend has both positive and
negative impacts on people and societies.
Marketers have been studying human psychology to determine the factors that
convince people to buy more. They spend millions of dollars on advertising to
encourage people to splurge and feel good about doing so.
This sharp increase in shopping activity has both good and bad repercussions.
Many people now work long hours and earn handsome salaries. They want to
feel rewarded for all those hours spent at the workplace and often go on a
shopping spree.
There is no harm in buying new things but if people don’t balance their emotions
and gain control over their desires, they will soon find themselves in deep debts.
Credit cards have made borrowing easier, but they are a big trap.
The skyrocketing shopping activity is good for the society in many ways. It results
in healthy economic activity. This creates the right environment where young
entrepreneurs can implement their creative ideas.
On the other end of the spectrum, excessive shopping creates a society of haves
and have-nots. Not everybody can afford to buy new items that hit the market.
When people who have the money to splurge begin to show off their new
possessions, it will create an inferiority complex in others who cannot afford to
buy them. They might even feel compelled to make money in whatever way they
can. This can cause an increase in crime. It may also strain relationships.
In short, the rise in shopping is due to excessive advertising. While this trend has
a few positive effects on the people, it has several drawbacks as well. In my
opinion, people should only buy items that they really need.
Some people believe that cooking food at home is a complete waste of
time. According to them, restaurants are better and make modern living
easier and a whole lot less stressful. Do you agree or disagree with this
statement?
This essay topic was seen in IELTS writing tests held in Hong Kong and
Singapore in June 2013.
Sample essay

Restaurants serve ready to eat meals for a price. They are a boon for busy
professionals who do not have enough time to cook a proper meal. It is true that
restaurant food makes modern living easier, still it cannot be considered better
than home-made food because of health concerns.
People who eat at restaurants on a regular basis develop many health problems.
Restaurants might claim that they take all measures to ensure that food is
cooked and served in a hygienic environment. However, this is not always true.
Routines inspections by food inspectors often reveal an ugly picture. In the
recent past, food authorities shut down many restaurants in Kerala, India
because they did not score well in the cleanliness department.
Another questionable and equally harmful practice is the use of preservatives
and other chemicals. In a bid to enhance the texture and flavour of food items
restaurants often use chemicals that are harmful for health. Preservatives are
used in large quantities to prolong the shelf life of food items. When consumed
on a regular basis, these chemicals will ruin a person’s health.
Home-made food, on the other hand, is healthier. Of course, cooking food at
home is not always easy and may consume a lot of time. Still, it is better. Home-
made food is unlikely to contain preservatives and harmful chemicals. What’s
more food cooked at home is cheaper. A restaurant meal usually costs much
more than a typical meal cooked at home. People who do not have the time to
cook their own food can employ a cook. And the money they save on their
restaurant bills can be used to pay their cook.
In conclusion, cooking food at home is not a waste of time. In fact it is absolutely
essential for good health. Restaurants are good for eating out once in a while but
they can’t replace traditional home cooking.
Essay topic
Restoration of old buildings involves enormous expenditure. Some people
believe that this money should be used to build new housing structures. To
what extent do you agree or disagree?
Sample essay
Building restoration is a responsible way of using resources because it involves
the preservation of what we have already built. Of course, restoration can
sometimes be expensive. Still, it is better than building altogether new structures.
Restoration also helps preserve our heritage. Old buildings often have a story to
tell. They are windows to the past. When we restore a building, we are
preserving our heritage and a part of our history. The major cost involved in
restoration is the cost of labour and that is the best thing about it. Restoration
creates jobs and improves local economy without further depleting our natural
resources.
Building a new house requires a lot of materials including wood, bricks, steel,
cement and sand. When new buildings mushroom in cities and towns, we lose
forests. Sand mining has caused the death of many a river. When sand beds
disappear rivers lose their ability to retain water. And when rivers dry out, water
scarcity occurs. This can lead to the loss of crops and cattle and has become
quite an issue in many countries.
What’s more, when new buildings are built after demolishing old buildings, we
need to dispose of the cement and concrete. Failure to do so will lead to a major
environmental issue. Of course, some buildings cannot be restored. Also in cities
where space is an issue there is a need to demolish old and dilapidated
structures and create new high rises. This is necessary to provide housing to a
large number of people. Restoration is not advisable in this case.
In conclusion, restoration can be expensive but it must be promoted because it
does not leave a negative impact on the environment. Building new structures
should be permitted only in cases where restoration is not possible.
The quality of life in large cities is decreasing. What could be the reasons behind
this? What measures can be taken to resolve this problem.
Model essay
Cities are growing. Unfortunately this development does have some negative
aspects. It is a known fact that the quality of life in large cities is not very good
because they are home to more people than they can possibly accommodate.
Environmental pollution and unhygienic surroundings are a common problem in
many cities. When a city houses more people than it can possibly afford, it is
hard to maintain cleanliness. Unhygienic surroundings are the breeding ground
for germs and cause many health problems. Vehicular pollution affects the
quality of air and leads to many respiratory ailments. All of these affect the quality
of life in cities.
The cost of living is also pretty high in metros. In large cities, it is hard to find
decent accommodation within one’s budget. Consequently, people are forced to
buy ridiculously small homes for huge prices. Those who cannot afford to do so
spend the whole of their lives in rented apartments. Worse still, the law and order
situation in many big cities is not particularly good making them unsafe for
visitors as well as those dwelling in those localities.
However, many of these problems can be solved with a little bit of planning. High
population density is the main reason that reduces the quality of life in cities.
Although this is not exactly avoidable, governments can reduce the migration to
cities by making jobs available in smaller towns as well. For example,
environmental units can be set up in small towns and villages. If these units
employ the people living nearby they will not have to move into large cities.
What’s more, the fact that cities are home to a large number of people makes it
possible for civic bodies to collect more money from taxes etc. If these taxes are
utilized properly civic authorities can build better roads and flyovers that will ease
the traffic congestion. And by improving the quality of public health care, the
government can ensure that all people get medical attention when they need it.
In conclusion, poor planning and the centralization of jobs is the main reason that
reduces the quality of life in large cities. However, these problems are solvable to
a great extent. The governments just need to make a determined effort to
decentralize the jobs.
More and more people now own cars. What are the problems associated
with an increase in the usage of private cars? How can these problems be
solved?
Model essay
Most families in the developed countries own at least one car. The situation is not
much different in the developing countries either. Needless to say, the number of
people who rely on public transport is declining. It is true that almost all of us
want to own a car. Busy highways are also considered to be a sign of a
developed economy. However, an increase in the usage of private cars is not
exactly a positive trend.
When more and more cars hit the roads, there is an increase in vehicular
pollution. The quality of air in cities is already bad. An increase in the number of
cars will make the situation even worse. Atmospheric pollution can lead to global
warming. When average temperatures rise, they cause drastic changes in
weather patterns across the world. What’s more when the quality of air
decreases, there is an increase in the incidences of respiratory diseases.
Although technology has significantly advanced in the last few decades, cars and
other vehicles are still run on fossil fuels like petrol and diesel. These are not
renewable sources of energy and are getting used up fast. In many countries fuel
prices are already pretty high. A further depletion in the reserves of fossil fuels
will make petrol and diesel costlier. In such a scenario, even public transport
systems will be unaffordable. This will badly affect the poor.
An increase in the number of private cars also leads to more accidents.
Countless lives are lost in accidents every day. This is clearly an indication that
our existing infrastructure is incapable of handling more vehicles.
Since cars are a status symbol, it is not easy to dissuade people from buying
them. However, governments can encourage more people to depend on the
public transport system by upgrading their quality and reliability. If trains and
buses arrive on time, more people will depend on them. Carpooling is another
option. People who work in the same office can share car journeys. By doing this
they can not only reduce their fuel expenses, but also make the roads a little less
busy and hence safer.
In conclusion, a rise in the number of private cars leads to several problems.
However, the governments can improve the situation by making public transport
systems more reliable.
Some people believe that men and women possess different skills.
According to them certain jobs are more suitable for men than women.
There are also some jobs where women perform better. Do you agree or
disagree with this statement?
Sample essay
Women now compete and cooperate with men in almost all walks of life and they
have proved their mettle, too. However, men and women are not built alike. They
may have the same intellectual capabilities, but physically and emotionally men
and women are different and that probably explains why certain jobs are
considered suitable for men and certain other jobs suitable for women.
Until a few decades ago many people used to believe that women are not
suitable for a career in science or finance. Such wrong notions no longer exist
because many women have proved that they make equally brilliant engineers
and number crunchers. Still, certain sectors prefer men over women. There are
also some sectors where women outperform men.
Thanks to their stronger physique, men are more suitable for physically
demanding jobs than women. For example, jobs in mining and mechanics are
laborious and involve handling heavy machinery. A few women have proved that
they are capable of handling such jobs, but the majority of workers employed in
these sectors are men. The armed forces also recruit more men than women.
Though women lack physical prowess, they score better than men in some other
areas. For example, women are more caring and patient. These qualities make
them excellent teachers and nurses. Women also possess better people skills
and are considered more suitable for careers in hospitality and public relations.
Of course, several women have proved that they are capable of doing just about
anything that men can. Take for instance, the case of Madam Curie, the first
woman to win the Nobel Prize for Physics. She proved her mettle at a time when
science and technology were largely dominated by men. Women have also
conquered the seas, the mountains and the skies. The fact that they lacked
muscle power didn’t deter them from pursuing their goals. Still, these are
exceptions rather than the rules.
In conclusion, certain jobs are more suitable for men. There are also certain jobs
where women perform better than men. Personally I believe that a person’s
physical and intellectual capabilities, rather than gender, should determine his or
her career choice. If a woman possesses sufficient physical strength and is
determined enough to pursue a career in a male dominated sector, her gender
should not come in the way of her goal. The same theory applies to men as well.
The clothing and fashion industry have a big influence on people. Is this a
good or bad thing?
Model answer
There is no denying the fact that the clothing and fashion industry dictate the way
we dress ourselves. Youngsters, in particular, are easily influenced by the latest
fashion trends. Now fashion shows are being organized even in smaller towns
and children as young as three years want to wear the latest model clothes. All of
these are signs of the growing influence of fashion industry. Unfortunately, this
trend has both positive and negative aspects.
Fashion helps people dress well. Fashionable clothes make us more
presentable. When people dress fashionably they feel good about themselves.
This boosts their level of confidence and makes them perform well in the
workplace. It is now a known fact that people who dress and look well have
better chances of getting a job. Even if a person is not blessed with naturally
good looks, they can make themselves more presentable by dressing well. That
is where fashion helps.
On the flip side, fashion can blind people. Fashion trends are often launched by
films and rich people. What celebrities wear on and off screen soon become a
craze with the general public. In a bid to become the most fashionable among
their peers, youngsters often spend insane amounts of money on clothes and
other accessories. This could make their poorer friends and colleagues feel
inferior. What’s more, fashionable clothes are not always the best. Fashion
trends that originate in the US or Europe may not suit the climate or the culture of
Asian countries. This often leads to a conflict of interest.
In conclusion, clothing and fashion industry have a big influence on people.
However, this trend has both advantages and disadvantages. Fashion is good as
long as it helps people feel good about themselves. When it becomes an
obsession it does more harm than good.
More people are traveling today than ever before. Why is this?
Model answer
In recent years, there has been a massive increase in the number of people who
engage in international travel. Many factors are responsible for this phenomenon.
For example, with the advent of low cost airlines, the cost of air traveling has
come down. This has encouraged more and more people to spend their
vacations in exotic foreign destinations. The growth in international trade
opportunities is also prompting more and more people to travel.
As competition heats up among airlines, air tickets become more and more
affordable. And when air tickets become more affordable, more and more people
are going to travel. Another equally important reason is the rise in the number of
households with disposable incomes. Many families now earn a lot more than
they need. People with high income are exploring newer ways to spend that
money. It is quite common for them to travel to foreign countries. Families with
surplus income are also more likely to send their children abroad for higher
studies.
In addition to this, the world as a whole is becoming one big global village.
Growing trade opportunities in the developing world have encouraged
multinational corporations to open offices in them. People who work for MNCs
have to engage in international travel very frequently. This was a relatively
unknown phenomenon until the world economy opened up one or two decades
ago.
After analyzing the situation, it is easy to see that tourism and trade are the main
factors that contribute towards the increase in international travel. If the world
economy continues to grow at this pace, this trend is going to continue.
Some people think that recent innovations in technology have made life
more comfortable and helped us to be more efficient by saving us time,
while others argue that technology has made us less efficient.
Model Answer
Technology has been around for quite some time, but the pace at which it
developed in recent years has both startled and surprised people. Nowadays,
new and improved gadgets hit the market almost every day. In a couple of weeks
they become outdated and are replaced by even more sophisticated ones.
It is true that technological innovations have made our lives more comfortable. It
is now hard to imagine a life without such appliances as refrigerators, vacuum
cleaners and washing machines. The advent of computers changed the way we
process and access information. Mobile phones help people to stay connected all
the time. And with internet, we can access a limitless pool of information from the
comforts of our home. Indeed, technology has not only made our lives more
comfortable, but also become an integral part of it.
On the other hand, technology can cause a great deal of stress to people who
are overly dependent on it. Now that internet and cell phones allow people to
stay connected all the time, there is no escaping from one’s work. People carry
their phones around and can’t help checking their emails even when they are on
a vacation. Worse still, too much reliance on technology can make us less
efficient. Now many people don’t even bother to remember their own telephone
number. They expect their computers and cellphones to remember everything for
them. This makes their brain idle.
What’s more, when technology gets more and more sophisticated day by day it is
not easy to keep pace with it. Many modern cellphones, computers and cameras
boast of complicated features that ordinary users cannot understand. People
often have to spend a great deal of time learning how to use the most recent
gadgets. By the time, they had figured out how to use a particular device, a more
sophisticated one would have hit the market.
In conclusion, technological innovations make lives more comfortable. However, I
don’t think that they make us more efficient because most of us who handle
these devices do not have the technical expertise to do it. Unless we learn to use
these devices properly, they are unlikely to make us more efficient.
Sport is becoming a business. More and more companies are getting
involved in sporting events. Do you think that it is a positive or negative
development?
Model answer
Major sporting events attract millions of viewers. Needless to say, they have
become quite popular with corporates trying to reach more and more customers.
By sponsoring popular sporting events companies significantly improve their
brand recall value. Nowadays, big corporate houses are not only sponsoring
sports events; they are also buying sports teams. It is a win-win situation for both.
Sport gets the financial assistance it desperately needs. Companies build their
brands. However, this development, too, has some negative aspects. Let’s
analyze.
Now that companies pump in millions of dollars into many sports items, talented
players are eager to enter the field. This is a definitely a positive development.
Sportsmen, at least those who play popular items, are now assured of a steady
income. In the olden days, many sports persons weren’t earning enough to make
a living. Prize money wasn’t good. Sponsorship deals hardly ever existed. This
deterred many talented players from pursuing a career in sports. Now the
situation is totally different. Corporate sponsorship has also helped many
sporting events from becoming extinct.
On the flip side, when sports become a business, the focus can shift from talent
to profit. Although big prize monies and sponsorship deals can attract fresh talent
into the game, sometimes the same can lead to problems like match fixing. It is
not uncommon for international cricket and football players to get involved in
match fixing controversies. The pressure to perform can also compel many
players to consume performance enhancing drugs. What’s more, the events that
attract corporate involvement are already popular on their own. For example, in
India cricket is hugely popular so companies are eager to sponsor cricketers.
Players of other less popular events don’t have any sponsors.
After analyzing both sides of the argument, it is not hard to see that corporates
entering the field of sports is both good and bad. Big prize money and
sponsorship deals will definitely encourage more people to pursue a career in
sports. On the other hand, companies will always have business interest in their
mind. Sometimes this can take the focus off the game.
Some people prefer to spend their lives doing the same things and avoid
change. Others, on the other hand, are always trying new things. They
believe that change is a good thing. Discuss both these views and give
your own opinion.
Model answer
Some people are always making changes to their lives. Others, on the other
hand, are content with their lot and resist the need to change. Personally, I
believe that change is a good thing because it makes our lives more interesting
and offers opportunities for growth.
The reason that prompts many people to make changes to their lives is the need
to fight boredom. If we do the same thing day in and day out we will soon find it
boring. By making some changes every now and then we can add that much
needed variety to our lives and spice things up. A change can be an opportunity
to learn. It throws fresh challenges that test a person’s ability to adapt and grow.
It can also make our lives more interesting. When people try new things, they
knowledge and skills improve. Trying new things will also help them overcome
their inhibitions and hidden fears. Better still, in many cases a change can bring
out the latent talents in a person.
On the other hand, when people spend their lives doing the same thing, they limit
their chances of growth. People who resist the need to change have limited
scope for career growth because of their inability to acquire new skills. Not so
long ago, when computerization began many people lost their jobs because they
couldn’t learn to use the computer. If these people had been willing to accept the
challenge and learn a new skill, they would not have lost their jobs.
After analyzing both sides of the argument, it is easy to see that change is a
good thing. It provides an excellent opportunity to learn and grow. It also makes
our lives more interesting.
After leaving school or university, young people should choose a job or
career that they love, rather than one that pays the best salary. To what
extent do you agree with this statement?
Model answer
For some people, money is the biggest factor that determines their choice of
career. They will pursue high-paying jobs even if they don’t enjoy it. Others, on
the other hand, follow their heart and choose a career they love. Personally I
believe that job satisfaction is far more important than salary.
Jobs are an important aspect of life. An average human being spends a great
deal of his or her time in the workplace. If you love your job, you don’t need
another reason to get up early in the morning and leave for work. People who
enjoy their job look forward to going to their workplace every morning. Moreover,
if you enjoy your work, you are more likely to prosper in your career. You may not
earn a huge pay packet in the beginning, but your passion for your profession will
ultimately take you places. On the other hand, if you are in a career that you
detest, you are unlikely to have the motivation to go to work. This lack of
enthusiasm will ultimately limit your chances of professional growth. Worse still, if
you don’t like your job, it could stress you out and lead to many health problems.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that money is not important. Of course, it is. You
are unlikely to be happy if you do not earn enough to make a living. However,
there is no justification for doing something that you don’t enjoy just for the sake
of making more money.
In conclusion, it is clear that choosing a career that one loves has many
advantages over choosing one just for the sake of money. If you love what you
do, your chances of success are pretty high and money will follow.
The crime rate among teenagers has increased dramatically in many
countries. Discuss some possible reasons for this increase and suggest
solutions. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples
from your own experience or knowledge.
Sample response
The number of teens who gets involved in criminal activities is on the rise. This is quite
distressing because teenage is a wonderful period of life when children should be busy
working towards building a flourishing career and a secure future. There are many
reasons for this increase in crime rate among teenagers. The most important among them
will be discussed in this essay.
Although this is not a country-specific phenomenon this rise in crime-rate is mainly
observed in countries where a healthy family institution doesn’t exist. Children coming
from a functional family unit are less likely to get into crime or other anti-social
activities. That is because they are answerable to someone at home. This fear of authority
will naturally deter from indulging in this sort of activities. What’s more, children
experience more emotional security in a loving family which makes them less prone to
developing criminal tendencies.
On the other hand, children of divorced parents have to deal with a lot of stress. In many
countries, especially in the West, the institution of family is not all that strong. In fact, a
large number of children are brought up by single moms and in a few cases, single dads.
The chronic absence of one parent can have a huge impact on the emotional well-being
on the children. A lot of them turn to crime to give vent to their pent-up emotions and
frustration.
Another reason behind this rise in the crime rate is the glorification of violence in films
and electronic media. Even family oriented films and television serials now depict an
overdose of crime. All of these can influence the impressionable mind of a teenager. They
might even arrive at the conclusion that it is fashionable to be a criminal.
We cannot deal with this issue if changes do not happen at the fundamental level. For
example, parents have a duty to ensure that their children are brought up in a healthy
family atmosphere. They must also closely monitor the activities of their children. They
should know who they are hanging out with and how they are doing in school. Single
parents can seek the help of grandparents and other adult relatives in bringing up the
children. Schools, too, have an important role to play. They can invent interesting
activities to keep students engaged even after school hours. If a teen is busy with his
studies and extra-curricular activities he is unlikely to have the time to nurture criminal
tendencies.
Many people these days travel far for work or spend more hours working.
Does this trend have more advantages or disadvantages? What do you
think about work-life balance?
Model Essay
Long working hours are the norm these days and that is hardly surprising. In this
competitive job scenario people are forced to work harder and harder. When
people spend more hours working, they get less time for themselves. This is not
necessarily a positive development because it can lead to health problems as
well as the disruption of families and personal relationships.
For one thing, there is absolutely nothing to prove that long working hours
improve productivity. In fact, when people work longer than they should, what
happens is that their productivity decreases. They fail to concentrate and take
longer to finish jobs. Traveling far for work doesn’t help either. In many major
cities people often have to travel several hours to reach their work place. When
at last, they reach home braving the traffic and a hard-working day, they have
little energy left in them. In addition, studies have proved that people who spend
long hours in the office are also more likely to develop major health problems like
heart disease and dementia.
We have already seen that long working hours doesn’t necessarily translate into
improved productivity. Another problem with this set up is the effect it has on a
person’s family and social life. When people spend long hours in the office, they
get little time to spend with their dear ones. Parents, who work long hours, often
fail to take proper care of their young children. This can be quite a problem in
families where both parents work. When children are deprived of the attention
they deserve, it will affect their emotional well-being. It can also have a negative
impact on their academic performance. In extreme cases, failure to strike a
balance between work and life can lead to the breakup of families.
As explained above, long working hours are in nobody’s interest. They don’t
improve an individual’s productivity. In fact, they make them less productive.
What’s more, when people spend more time in the office, their family life suffers.
In other words proper work-life balance is absolutely essential to lead a
contented life. It is hoped that companies arrange their working hours in such a
way that employees also get some time for themselves.
ome people believe that public celebrations like national days and festivals
are a waste of time. They are of the opinion that people should spend
money on more important things. Do you agree or disagree? Support your
arguments with examples from your own experience.
Sample essay
Festivals bring cheer and provide an opportunity to celebrate. They help us forget
the bitter realities of our existence and hope for a better tomorrow. Needless to
say, people all over the world celebrate special occasions like national holidays
and festivals. It is true that insane amounts of money are spent on these public
celebrations but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are a waste of money or
other resources.
Festivals and national holidays are perhaps the most eagerly anticipated
occasions of the year. The best thing about public celebrations is that they bring
people together. For example, Diwali is celebrated in all parts of India. This
festival not only brings people together but also helps them stay connected with
their culture and values. Nowadays it isn’t uncommon for different members of a
family to live in different parts of the world. They hardly get an opportunity to
meet one another. In most cases festivals are the only occasions they get
together. One cannot put a price tag on the joy one gets from spending time with
one’s dear ones.
Diwali is also the busiest shopping season in India. It is true that people spend
enormous amounts of money of gifts, sweets and fireworks, but one cannot
overlook the boost this Diwali spending gives to the Indian economy. In the same
way, Christmas and the associated holiday shopping season bring cheer to the
US and several other economies.
National festivals also foster national integration. They invoke a sense of unity
among the people. When people celebrate an occasion together they forget
about their religious, cultural or other differences.
After examining the situation it is not hard to see why festivals are so important
and how they help us stay united. And hence the argument that public
celebrations are a waste of money doesn’t hold much water.
People do not have enough money to pay internet. Should the
governments provide free internet service to everyone?
Sample response
Much like the telephone or the television, the internet has become an integral
part of our day-to-day existence. However, the internet is expensive and this
prevents many people from accessing this limitless source of knowledge and
information. This, however, doesn’t mean that the government should provide
free internet to everyone.
All over the world, the number of people who use the internet is steadily on the
rise and that is hardly surprising. The internet is a vast source of knowledge and
entertainment. In fact, having a computer with an internet connection is a bit like
having all the books in the world under one’s disposal. The internet is even better
because it allows you to find the necessary information in a matter of seconds.
The internet also provides entertainment and keeps us up-to-date with the latest
happenings in the world. And hence one cannot underestimate the importance of
internet.
However, saying that the government should provide free internet to everyone is
kind of absurd. In a world where we have to pay for basic necessities like food
and medicine, demanding that the internet should be free is a bit ridiculous. It is a
useful service but for many people there are far more pressing needs. For
example, millions of people across the world still have no access to safe drinking
water or electricity. Tens of thousands of people are homeless. A lot of them
haven’t even heard about the internet. What they need are the basic necessities
of life and not free internet.
After analysing the situation it is not hard to see that the basic necessities of life
are far more important than the internet. Of course, the internet is useful, but it is
not indispensable. And hence the governments should use their resources to
provide the basic amenities rather than giving free internet.
Nowadays, more and more young unmarried adults are choosing to study
and live outside their parents’ homes. Do you think this trend is positive?
Sample essay
Thanks to urbanization, more and more young and often unmarried adults
migrate to cities in search of jobs or a better life style. This trend is largely
positive, but it does have a few negative side effects as well.
Let’s start with the positive aspects. When unmarried youngsters live on their
own, they learn to become self-reliant. They learn to take care of themselves.
They learn to cook, clean and wash. In fact, single men and women living alone
in the cities learn all the skills necessary to run a home. They also learn to
manage their time and money. They wouldn’t perhaps learn many of these skills
if they were living with their parents.
Independence is another plus point. When people live on their own away from
their family they get an opportunity to explore and discover themselves. They
discover their inherent skills. They learn to cope with challenges. They also learn
several social skills.
On the flip side, too much independence can have a negative impact as well
especially in the case of single adults who can’t distinguish between right and
wrong. The cities are full of traps and young adults are their main targets. In the
absence of a guiding voice, many youngsters living alone in the cities can get
into bad company. They may also develop bad habits like smoking and drinking
because they have no one to fear in the city. They may not develop these habits
if they were living with their parents or elder siblings.
After analysing both aspects of the situation it is not hard to see that living on
one’s own helps a youngster to grow into a mature and self-sufficient adult.
There are some negative aspects as well, but this trend is largely positive and
should be encouraged.
A lot of older people are suffering from loneliness these days. They also
lack physical fitness. What do you think are the reasons for these
problems? Can you think of possible solutions? Use personal examples if
applicable.
Model Answer
Loneliness is a major problem that plagues older people all over the world.
People in their seventies and eighties have always had their share of problems.
But the kind of loneliness and associated problems that they experience today
are much worse than what older people had to endure twenty or thirty years ago.
What are the reasons for these problems? How can these problems be solved?
Let’s examine.
Loneliness is not a new phenomenon. People of all ages and nationalities face it
from time to time. While loneliness can affect all people, the older people are the
worst hit by this problem. Part of this problem can be attributed to the rise of
nuclear families. Families all over the world are becoming smaller and smaller.
While youngsters who spend a considerable part of their away from home have
plenty of opportunities to socialize, their older parents and grandparents have
few outing options which severely limit their chances of interacting with other
people. Old age is also a period of physical inactivity. Few older people even
bother to step out of their home.
To overcome loneliness older people must keep themselves engaged in
meaningful activities. They can go a walk in the morning or in the evening. It will
give them physical exercise. It will also give them an opportunity to meet and
interact with other people. They can join clubs or they can pursue other interests.
By keeping themselves constantly engaged in something or the other they can
overcome loneliness. What is more, when they are physically fit they will feel
better about themselves and that will add a whole new layer of meaning to life.
Many people choose to work or live abroad because of the higher
standards of living they can find outside their home country. Do you think
this brings more advantages or disadvantages to the people who follow
this path?
Model Answer
The standard of living in developed countries is considerably better than that in
underdeveloped or developing countries and that is what prompts most people to
emigrate. People who choose to live abroad almost always come from
underdeveloped or developing countries where they do not have enough
opportunities for career or personal growth.
When talented youngsters move abroad, they get the kind of salary that matches
their qualifications. They may not get similar opportunities in the country of their
birth. By moving abroad, they will also be able to provide world class education to
their children. Another advantage is the availability of excellent healthcare in the
developed world. It is a well-known fact that people in the first world countries live
longer than those in the third world countries. People who immigrate to these
countries may also enjoy this benefit.
On the flip side, when the talented youth move to other countries in search of
better jobs, it creates a dearth of talent in their mother country. While this is a
disadvantage, it has another side to it. A large number of Indians now work and
live abroad. The money that they sent to their loved ones in India makes a
significant contribution to the Indian economy. According to some statistics,
annually India receives over 50 billion USD in foreign remittance. That’s a huge
amount that can significantly improve the quality of a living in a country. Foreign
remittance, for example, is the backbone of the Kerala economy (a south Indian
state) where the literacy and longevity rates are comparable to those in the
developed world.
After analyzing both sides of the situation it is felt that moving abroad for a better
job has more advantages than disadvantages. Not only the people who
immigrate, but also the country of their birth benefit from this trend in more ways
than one.
Some cultures value old age while others value young age. Discuss both
attitudes and express your opinion.
There is a popular belief that age brings wisdom and that probably explains why
some cultures value old age. On the flip side, old age is also a period of
increasing dependence. Old people can never match the dynamism of their
younger counterparts. So which age is better? Let’s examine.
Aged people have more experience behind them. They have seen more life. As a
result of this they have a deeper understanding of the problems of the world and
are more capable of making judicious decisions. In the Indian culture aged men
and women command great respect in the society. Theirs tend to be the last
word in matters of utmost importance. Young men and women in the family may
have better educational qualifications, but they still listen to their aged parents
and grandparents.
Consider the case of world leaders. Most of them are men and women in their
sixties or seventies. They are chosen leaders for their ability to handle situations
with more maturity. All over the world, people who occupy higher positions aren’t
exactly young. Youngsters may be full of energy and enthusiasm, but they lack
experience and the maturity that comes with it. They are also more likely to get
carried away by their emotions or excitement.
On the flip side, old age is a period of increasing dependence. As people age,
their faculties may get impaired. They may have trouble remembering things or
taking sound decisions. Unfortunately, this is an inevitable part of the process of
aging. People also become much less productive in their twilight years.
After analyzing the situation, it is felt that both ages have their merits and
demerits. Age may bring wisdom, but it also makes people dependent. The truth
is that no society can survive without the energy and enthusiasm of its
youngsters. And if they receive the guidance of their aged counterparts, they will
be able to work wonders.
Some people like to go to a live sporting event, while others prefer to stay
at home and watch it on television. Which do you prefer? Discuss both
views using personal examples.
Model Answer
The way people consume professional sporting events varies from person to
person. Some like to watch sports events on television. Others, on the other
hand, are more interested in going to the stadium and watch the event in person.
Is one approach better than the other? Let’s examine.
When you attend a live sporting event in person, you actually get an opportunity
to participate in the event. You get to see your favourite sports persons in flesh
and blood. That is probably why some people like to go to a stadium. The
excitement that you get when you are part of a cheering crowd is not something
that you can experience when you watch the same event at home sitting in front
of a TV. In my opinion, it is this eagerness to be a part of the spectacle that
draws people to the stadium. After all, watching an event in person is not exactly
the same as watching its broadcast on TV.
On the other hand, watching a live sporting event in person does involve some
risks. Certain sporting events like racing can cause injury to the spectators as
well as to the participants. The exorbitant ticket prices are another problem that
discourages people from going to the stadium. Watching a sporting event on TV,
on the other hand, costs nothing. You can do it in the comforts of your home: you
don’t have to sit in the hot sun sweating. And if you still need company, you can
invite your friends and create a mini stadium-like atmosphere at home.
After analyzing the situation, I couldn’t find anything to prove that watching sports
events in person is better than watching them on TV or vice –versa. It is actually
about personal preference and affordability. The truth is that most people who
find contentment in watching a sporting event on television will definitely
appreciate it if they get an opportunity to watch it in person. In most cases the
factors that discourage people from going to the stadium is not a lack of interest
but the huge price of the ticket and the limited availability of seats. If tickets are
available and they have the money to spend, they are more likely to watch it in
person than on TV.
.
Modern technology has made our lives more complicated. Some people
believe that we should do without modern technology and live a simpler
life. Do you agree or disagree? This question is taken from www.ielts-
blog.com
Model Answer
The way we live today is significantly different from the way our forefathers lived
fifty or sixty years ago. Thanks to modern technology, today we have got just
about every amenity we need to live a comfortable life. Some people believe that
modern technology has made our lives more complicated. They are of the
opinion that we should learn to do away with it. Is that possible? Let’s examine.
Modern technology might have made our lives more complicated, but one has
got to admit that it has improved our lives in several other ways. For example,
cars and buses have made commuting easier. Electricity has literally brightened
our lives. Air conditioning has made summer months tolerable. Cell phones and
internet make it possible to stay connected wherever we are. Home appliances
are a boon for homemakers. Technology has also considerably improved our
productivity.
On the flip side, technology has made our lives complicated too. There is no
escaping from the always-on connectivity. Before the advent of cellphones and
internet, taking a break was a whole lot easier. People just had to pack their bags
and go to the place they like to unwind. Now that cellphone terminals are
available in virtually every part of the world, people can never escape from their
work or problems. Even when they are on a family vacation, few people can
resist the temptation to check their work email. This need to stay constantly
connected has only made our lives more stressful. Modern technology has also
made us physically inactive and prone to develop several lifestyle diseases.
Does that mean that we should do without modern technology? Well, it is not as
easy as it sounds. Technology is addictive. It is not easy to live without the
technological innovations we are used to enjoying. Can anybody now think of a
world where we don’t have access to electricity or telephone? The truth is that
we can’t.
After analyzing the situation it is felt that though modern technology has made
our lives more complicated, it is not something that we can do without. What we
need to do is to use it responsibly.
Economic growth has helped to improve standards of living all over the
world. However, some research shows that people in developing countries
are happier with this trend than people in developed countries. Explain
why you think this is.
Model Answer
There is no denying the fact that economic growth has improved the standard of
living all over the world. However, growth in global economy may mean different
things to different people. For people in the developing world it means better
opportunities for personal and professional growth. More and more people in
developing countries such as India and China now earn more than enough to
lead comfortable lives. Now they have high disposable incomes that make it
possible for them to lead luxurious lives. They can now buy the latest gadgets,
travel to the most exotic places on earth and own luxury apartments and cars.
Their children now get world class education and healthcare. None of these
would have been possible if the economy wasn’t growing. Needless to say, for
people in the developing world growth in the economy is a positive development.
Now let us see what global economic growth means to people in the developed
world. Majority of people in the developed world already lead comfortable lives.
They already possess disposable income and the recent growth in the global
economy hasn’t really done anything to further improve their standard of living.
On the other hand, they now face stiff competition from their peers in the
developing countries. Their market share has started eroding. They are no longer
the most sought after candidates for jobs even in their own countries. Worse still,
more and more jobs now get outsourced to the developing world, where the cost
of labour is low compared to that in the West. As a result of this people in the
developed world are now losing their jobs. Needless to say, they aren’t all that
happy with this sudden spurt in global economy.
The facts given above should explain why researchers feel that people in the
developing countries are happier with the growth in global economy than the
people in the developed world.
The number of older people is increasing. What are the advantages and
disadvantages of this?
Model Answer
Thanks to improved living standards and universal accessibility of medical
facilities, more and more people now live to be seventy or eighty. This is an
achievement worthy of celebration because longevity is a positive thing. It is an
indication that all those social welfare schemes are bearing fruit. But what exactly
happens when the number of older people in the society increases? What are the
advantages and disadvantages of this trend? Let’s take a look at both sides of
the issue.
Much of medical science is concerned with ways to increase the life span of a
person. Longevity is one of the factors that determine the livability of a country. In
short, countries where the people enjoy good longevity are thought to be much
better than countries that have poor longevity. Part of this is due to the fact that
longevity is a measure of the effectiveness of other wellness factors. The fact
that more and more people now cross the 60 or 70 milestone is a good indication
that living standards have considerably improved. And that is a good thing.
The rise in the older population has other benefits too. Older people are far more
experienced and knowledgeable. They have what it takes to guide the younger
generation in the right direction.
On the other hand, the older people aren’t necessarily productive. Most of them
don’t work or earn. Older people also need special care and medical attention. In
most cases they are dependent on their children or other close relatives either
due to financial problems or due to physical inabilities.
Looking at both sides of the situation, it is felt that although the rise in the number
older people is a positive sign, it is not without its drawbacks. We can’t aspire for
a society wherein older people outnumber younger people. The future of a
nation, after all, is in its youth.
Some people believe that advertisements targeting children may have
negative effects on them, and suggest banning such advertisements as a
solution. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Model Answer
Children constitute a sizable section of the population. Needless to say a large
number of advertisements on TV and other forms of media are directly targeted
at children. Is this a positive trend? Does it have any negative effects on kids?
Some people believe that it is bad for kids. Well, let’s see if there is some truth in
that argument.
Children are ‘soft targets’. Advertisements targeting kids usually are of products
they have an inherent interest in. For example ads for cookies, chocolates, health
drinks and toys almost always portray kids. Children are also highly
impressionable. It is easy to convince them that a certain brand of cookies or
chocolates is better than similar products from another brand. It is also easy to
convince them that using a certain product is ‘cool’.
Brands all over the world are trying hard to expand their reach and as such they
are keen on exploring all possible options. That is where kids come into the plot.
In today’s nuclear families children play a huge role in decision making. They
decide what they want to eat or wear. They might even decide what their parents
should wear to work. One could argue that this is some form of a children’s
empowerment. Unfortunately that is not the case.
Children are too young to decide what is good or bad for them. Take for instance,
the ads for instant noodles and potato chips: they are now being marketed as
health foods. The target audience of these ads is mostly kids. Advertisements,
too, portray kids gorging on them. These ads give the impression that consuming
junk foods on a regular basis is perfectly OK when, in fact, it has serious impact
on health. There are also ads that promote unhealthy rivalry between kids.
So what is the solution? Will banning these ads solve the problem? Of course, it
will – to a certain extent. It is true that besides being a marketing tool, ads are
educative. Children can learn a lot of things from them. Therefore banning all ads
targeting kids might be immature. However, it is essential that the government
bans ads that can have a negative impact on the emotional or physical well-being
of kids.
.
Most people watch foreign films first, before locally produced films. Why is
that so? If the government in your country decides to invest in the film
industry, will you support them to do so and why?
Model Answer
The fact that a film produced in one country gets released in another country is
an indication that it is a good film which is likely to interest people from all over
the world. When I think of foreign films what come to my mind are Hollywood
films.
I think the popularity of Hollywood films and foreign films in general can be
attributed to the fact that they use the most modern technology. What is more,
these films are produced by big companies that have the money and the means
to generate huge publicity for them. Today, we all know that marketing is what
decides the fate of a product – be it a film, a book or a gadget. So I am not
surprised that these films tend to do well overseas.
Locally produced films, on the other hand, are usually produced by small
production houses that can’t generate a great deal of hype. What’s more, these
films often have familiar storylines and backdrops that may not interest some
people. That probably explains why most people watch foreign films before
locally produced ones.
As for the government investment in the film industry, well, I think that is a fine
idea. I don’t think that the government should produce commercial films with the
sole objective of making money. Instead, it can produce films that carry a
message. You can’t expect big or small production houses to make such films
because they are not always commercially viable. Because the government
doesn’t lack money or means it can produce such films for the welfare of the
society.
Some people think it is our moral duty to help poor people. Some people
think that big amounts of money do not reach the poor. Discuss and give
your opinion..
Model Answer
There is no denying the fact that it is our moral duty to help the poor and the
needy. Every religion in the world asks its believers to help those in need.
Needless to say, many people help the poor by donating money to charities. But
is that enough to eradicate poverty and suffering from the world? Does the
money we donate reach the hands of the people who actually need it? Many
people believe that it doesn’t. Let’s see if there is any truth in that argument.
For most people, charity means making generous donations to governmental and
non-governmental organizations working for the poor. You can’t blame them.
Only a few people have the time or drive to engage in social work. The rest of us
simply donate money. It would have been enough if the money thus donated
had reached the poor and the needy. Unfortunately, it doesn’t happen so. Only a
fraction of the amount reaches people who actually need it. The rest reaches the
hands of the corrupt and greedy officials who work for these organizations.
That, however, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t help the poor at all. While it is
true that many organizations and individuals working for the poor are corrupt to
the core, there are several exceptions too. Take for instance, the case of Mother
Teresa. She single-handedly proved that one person can make a difference to
the lives of millions. The Missionaries of Charities, the organization she founded,
is still changing the lives of the poor in Calcutta. There are several other
examples too. Organizations like these can’t survive without the help of the public
who donate time and money for the cause.
It is therefore felt that although large amounts of money do not reach the poor,
we cannot refrain from donating at all. Instead, we must try to eliminate
corruption by striving for greater degree of transparency. We must also donate
time for the cause we believe in whenever that is possible.
.
There is an increase in violence in society because police officers carry
guns. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your
answer and include examples from your personal experience.
Model Answer
Police officers carry guns and that is part of their job. They are entrusted with the
job of enforcing law and order in the society. When criminals carry guns, can we
expect our police force to carry out their duty without the help of guns?
Police officers do inspire the society. Children, especially, have a fascination for
the police uniform and the gun. Does this cause an increase in violence in the
society? Well, that is debatable.
Because police officers carry guns and use them as and when necessary, it
might give the impression that carrying gun is fashionable. It might also give the
impression that guns are necessary for the maintenance of peace. In that case, it
can be said that gun-toting police officers inspire violence.
Now let’s take a look at the other side of the argument. The duty of a police
officer is to enforce law and order in the society. During the execution of their job,
they face a lot of challenges. They have to deal with people of different kinds.
How can we expect an unarmed police officer to effectively deal with a situation
that might itself be violent? The gun, though it may be a sign of violence, is a
necessity in situations like these. It also provides some security to the lives of our
police force. When criminals are armed, police officers too need to be armed.
That is essential for the effective execution of their job.
Looking at both sides of the argument, it is safe to assume that the gun is a
necessary evil which the police force can’t do away with. What we need to do to
reduce the incidences of violence is to create awareness about their ill-effects.
In some countries, grandparents play a significant role in bringing up
children. Is it good or bad?
Model Answer
It is true that in some countries grandparents play a significant role in bringing up
children. This trend has both positive and negative sides. Let’s look at the
positive side first.
In countries like India a normal family consists of parents, grandparents and
children. It might even include members like uncles and aunts. In families where
both parents work, it is the grandparents who look after the kids when their Dads
and Moms are away. This is a good thing. Parents can go to their workplace
without having to worry about the safety of their children. The grandparents, too,
benefit from this arrangement. They don’t have to spend the last decades of their
life in solitude. It is good for their overall wellbeing.
Studies have proved that children coming from families where they have the
company of their grandparents have better social skills. They are better at
interacting with other children. They also feel more secure and are less likely to
get into bad habits or fall into depression. Grandparents also play a significant
role in keeping the children rooted in their values and cultures. In a country like
India, it is quite common for kids to be brought up on mythological stories that
they hear from their grandparents. These moral stories build the foundation of
their character.
Now let’s take a look at the negative side of this trend. Grandparents belong to
the older generation. Some of the values that they inculcate into the children may
not resonate well with the values of the modern world they have to live in.
Grandparents also tend to be over indulgent; they don’t always bother to
discipline the kids when they do something mischievous. This could create
problems in their normal development as responsible adults. Nonetheless, these
are minor issues that pale in comparison with the benefits that children get when
they are brought up by their grandparents.
After looking at both sides of the question, it is safe to assume that it is generally
good for the children to be brought up by their grandparents.
.
Some people think that schools are merely turning children into good
citizens and workers, rather than benefitting them as individuals. To what
extent do you agree or disagree?
It is true that the modern education system places too much emphasis on
improving the job-worthiness of children and that is hardly surprising. Jobs are
important. If they weren’t, job-oriented courses wouldn’t have been so popular
among students. As you can probably see, professional courses like medicine,
engineering and MBA attract more students than courses like arts or pure
science. That means both want schools and colleges to turn them into
employable adults.
While it is true that there is an emphasis on making children good citizens and
workers, it is wrong to assume that schools don’t benefit children as individuals.
In fact, children learn a lot of life-skills from school. Schools teach children to
interact one another. It teaches them to respect authority; it nourishes their
leadership skills and teaches them how to work as part of a team. Schools also
teach children the need to be disciplined. All of these skills are essential to grow
into good adults.
I even think that children who receive formal schooling have an advantage over
those who are home schooled. That is because the school is a microcosm of the
world outside. It teaches kids all the skills necessary to survive in the world
outside. What’s more, the advancements in modern technology now allow
schools to offer individualized curriculums. Many schools now give students the
freedom to choose the courses they want to study. It allows them to demonstrate
their skills. Modern technology, which most schools have embraced in a big way,
also gives children more opportunity to interact with their teachers and peers.
As schooling tend to become more and more tailored to suit the individual needs
of young people, it is hard to see how the argument that schools don’t benefit
children individually holds water.
Some believe that students who fear their teachers excel academically.
Others believe students work better when they have a friendly relationship
with their teacher. Discuss these views and provide your opinion.
Model answer
Different teachers have different style of teaching. Some believe in instilling a
sense of fear in their students. Others are more interested in having friendly
relationships with their students. Which style is better? Is it true that students who
fear their teachers tend to do better in their studies? Let’s examine.
Not every student has enough motivation to do well in his or her studies. A large
number of school going students don’t even understand the need for good
grades. They go to school simply because their parents send them there. They
will not get good grades if they do not have a teacher who punishes them
whenever they make mistakes. It is actually this fear of punishment that acts as
an incentive to study harder. While teachers who frighten their students might
seem like a bad idea, there is no denying the fact that they act as a motivation to
work harder and harder.
Teachers who like to be friendly with their students are good for well-motivated
students. They encourage them to experiment and explore. The American
education system is well known for its friendly relationship between teachers and
students. This style of teaching may not be suitable for less motivated students,
but one has got to admit that the US has produced the most number of
innovators and achievers. Needless to say, the US is the most popular
destination for overseas students.
Looking at both sides, it is felt that teachers who instill some fear are good for
less motivated students. Well-motivated and enterprising students, on the other
hand, tend to do better with friendly teachers who encourage them to experiment
and explore.
Some people believe that to be a good teacher, you need to acquire
training in teaching, while others believe that teaching capabilities can be
developed with experience. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Model Answer
Do teachers require professional training in teaching? Some people think that it is
absolutely necessary. Others, on the other hand, believe that teaching
capabilities can be acquired with experience. Which argument is true? Let’s
examine.
Most schools now prefer employing teachers who have a degree in teaching and
that makes sense. A professional qualification in teaching equips teachers with
all the skills necessary for teaching. A trained teacher has already received basic
lessons in children’s psychology. He or she is already familiar with the most
modern teaching methods. As a result of this they can do justice to their job from
the day they start teaching.
The method of teaching has changed considerably over the years. Schools now
employ several modern techniques that are not exactly easy to understand. If a
teacher has not received training he or she will have trouble incorporating these
techniques into their teaching. That means schools will need to provide training
to them.
On the other hand, like every other skill, teaching skills too can be acquired with
experience. If a teacher is good at learning from her everyday experiences at
school, it wouldn’t take her more than a year or two to acquire the teaching
capabilities of someone who has acquired professional training.
Looking at both sides of the argument, it is not hard to see that though teaching
capabilities can be acquired with experience it takes time. And until a teacher
acquires enough experience, he or she will not have the competence expected of
a good teacher. In other words, trained teachers are better than those who have
received little or no training at all.
Companies now prefer to hire people with good social skills as well as
good academic qualifications. Do you think that social skills are now
getting more important than educational qualifications?Model answer
People having good social skills have always had an advantage over those who
lack them. They happen to be more popular than their colleagues and get things
done without much difficulty. Needless to say, companies prefer to hire people
with good social skills and pleasing personalities.
Why do social skills matter in today’s job scenario? Social skills have always
been important, but they have never commanded greater respect than they do
now. Why? Well, just take a look at the way companies now advertise and sell
their products. Traditional channels of advertising such as print and television
ads are beginning to give way to interactive media like internet where potential
consumers get to interact with marketers before they decide on a purchase. And
when things get interactive, the one who is likely to be a winner is the one who
has better social skills. Just about every company worth its salt now run online
campaigns on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. Besides being
cost effective, these campaigns are helpful in brand-building.
A few years ago, for most companies having an online presence simply meant
owning a website of their own. Now these company websites are being replaced
by Facebook fan pages and Twitter profiles. A great deal of brand building is now
all about amassing Facebook likes and twitter followers. In such a scenario,
companies can’t survive if they don’t hire people who can make their social
campaigns successful. In the coming years, the emphasis on social skills will
only increase.
Although I don’t think that social skills are more important than academic skills,
possessing them is a must in jobs that require you to interact with people. Of
course, social skills can’t replace academic skills or vice-versa and companies
are unlikely to hire an under-educated person over a well-educated one just
because the former has better social skills than the latter. But potential job-
seekers can no longer ignore the importance of social skills. If they do, it will
seriously hamper their job-worthiness. The good news is that just like academic
skills social skills too can be learnt.
Youngsters now admire and imitate media and sports personalities even
though they do not always set a good example. Do you think that this is a
positive or negative development?
Model Answer
Hero worship is in our blood. In this day and age, media and sports personalities
are the heroes. They are everywhere – on the billboards, in the newspapers, on
TV and internet. This omnipresence has earned them widespread fame and
millions of fans who try to imitate everything that they do. Is this a positive
development? Let’s examine.
Admiring film and sports personalities is nothing unusual but unfortunately it isn’t
always good. A large number of our celebrities don’t set good examples. Many of
them are known for their extravagant and wasteful lifestyles. They don’t mind
spending millions of dollars on shopping. They wear expensive designer
garments and drive super luxury cars. They earn millions of dollars every year so
it doesn’t really matter to them. Unfortunately, they inspire middle class people,
who can hardly afford this, to adopt the same life style.
Wafer thin models promote unhealthy eating habits. Anorexia has become a
major health issue these days. Models and film stars who look nearly perfect
because of Photoshop effects have given rise to a generation obsessed with
looking perfect. Even extramarital relationships are now considered perfectly
acceptable because several celebrities have multiple partners.
Celebrities are human beings too and they have their own weaknesses. Just
because they happen to excel in a particular field, we can’t expect them to be
paragons of virtue. They are influential people and it would be great if they can
be good role models, but the truth is that that is where most of them fail.
On the other hand, we do have something to learn from these famous people.
They are achievers. Many of them had humble beginnings. Still, they rose to
fame because of their determination and hard work. We can also achieve the
same if we make a sincere attempt.
After analyzing the situation, it is not hard to see that admiring and imitating film
and sports personalities who do not set a good example is bad. Simply admiring
them is alright. The problem begins when you try to imitate everything that they
do.
Do you think that artists like writers, musicians and painters are valuable to
society? Discuss.
Model answer
Artists are the custodians of a nation’s cultural heritage. They determine how the
nation thinks and acts and keep it sane. Are artists valuable to the society? Let’s
examine.
Artists like writers, musicians and painters influence the way a nation thinks.
They act as the guiding lights for the society. No one can feel the pulse of a
nation like its artists. And no one can be better representatives of a nation than
its artists.
Much of what we know about our forefathers, we learned from the works of great
writers and painters. They preserved history for us. Writers like Homer, Dante
and Shakespeare not only entertained the masses with their writings, but also
painted a realistic picture of the era they lived in. If Shakespeare wasn’t born we
would perhaps have known very little about the life and values of the people who
lived in the Victorian era. What Shakespeare and Dante did for us, today’s writers
will do for the coming generations.
Great works of art inspire the soul. They encourage us to lead better, responsible
lives. Artists often act as the voice of wisdom. They help us to distinguish
between the right and the wrong. They protect the society from rotting and make
it a better place to live in.
Artists were the catalysts behind every revolution that changed the world. They
were the first to sow the seeds of unrest. The Russian Resolution would not have
been possible without the contribution of the Russian writers. In the same way,
the Renaissance would not have been possible without the artists of Europe.
Artists are often the first to raise their voice against injustice. Through their works
they highlight the problems plaguing the society and urge the administration to do
its duty.
After analyzing the situation it is not hard to see that artists are valuable to the
society. Their contribution to the society cannot be measured in terms of
monetary benefits. But the truth is that artists are the forces that keep the society
civilized and humane.
Artists like writers, actors and singers grab more attention than scientists
and inventors. Do you agree or disagree with this view?
Model answer
Artists are everywhere. They provide entertainment and that makes them the
darlings of the media. They are on the billboards, in the newspapers and on the
television and internet. This constant visibility makes them popular with the
masses. Is it true that artists grab more attention than scientists and inventors?
Let’s examine.
Scientists and inventors contribute a lot more to the well-being of the society than
artists. Technical innovations have considerably improved the quality of living.
Breakthroughs in medical science have increased longevity. Almost all of the
comforts that we enjoy today would not have been available without
advancements in science and technology. This, however, doesn’t mean that the
people who work behind these inventions and discoveries are household names.
Except for a few like Edison or Einstein, most scientists are not well-known public
figures. That is probably because they don’t have hyperactive PR agencies to
keep them stay in the news. This under popularity might discourage several
bright minds from pursuing a career in science and technology.
Artists, on the other hand, have to stay in the news. Their success is measured in
terms of their visibility and popularity. Famous writers have no difficulty selling
their books. In the same way, albums released by famous singers sell like hot
cakes. Part of this popularity is a result of their conscious efforts to stay in the
news. Most artists, for example, have hired public relations agencies. These PR
companies work with the sole objective of making their clients popular.
After analyzing the situation, it is not hard to see that artists get more attention
than scientists. It is not easy to say whether this is a positive trend or a negative
trend. There is also nothing to claim that it is the over popularity of artists that
makes scientists less popular. Arts and science are two distinct fields. One meets
the necessities of man while the other provides entertainment. And entertainers
tend to be popular everywhere simply because they help us forget the miseries of
our existence.