The IELTS Expert: IELTS Writing Task 2 – Academic & General

MODEL ANSWERS
Contents
1. Old people
2. Private tutors
3. Smoking
4. Young adults
5. Change
6. Cinema
7. The death penalty
8. Endorsements
9. Environment: government or individuals
10. Teachers
11. Dangerous sports
12. Exams
13. Selfishness
14. Advertising
15. Nature versus nurture
16. Prison
17. Racism
18. Studying art at school
19. Supporting weaker students
20. Terrorism
21. Travelling with friends
22. Music
23. Politicians and scientists
24. Leaving school
25. Free speech
26. School uniform
27. Elderly relatives
28. Labour-saving devices
29. Buying a house
30. Sleep
31. The speed limit
32. Online study
33. Working from home
34. Major sporting events
35. Holidays for workers
36. Exploitation of the planet
37. Alcohol
38. Garbage
39. Tourism
40. Computer games
41. Smartphones
42. Only children
Old people
Science can now help people to live to the age of a hundred or more. Some people view it
in a positive light, but others believe it creates problems. Discuss both views and give your
own opinion.

Life expectancy has risen dramatically over recent decades, and it is no longer unusual to
meet individuals who have lived for a century. At first sight, this might appear to be a
positive development. However, there is a negative side which also needs to be
considered.
Individuals, their families and society can benefit from this longevity. Those lucky enough
to have excellent physical and mental health can engage in recreational activities and
enjoy their later years. They may also support their families in several ways. For instance,
even extremely elderly relatives can look after grandchildren or great-grandchildren
whose parents have busy working lives and other commitments. Finally, the elderly have
accrued a great deal of experience and their wisdom can enrich society as a whole. In
many cultures, those who have lived longest are asked for advice when difficult issues
have to be dealt with.
However, we need to recognise that living longer can be miserable, and the elderly can be
a burden for relatives and the state. Centenarians often suffer from physical illnesses
which prevent them from leading an active life. They may be housebound or even
confined to bed. Similarly, mental conditions such as memory loss and Alzheimer ’s
disease can be devastating. Having an extremely old relative can create difficulties for a
family. Younger relatives may resent caring for them or supporting them financially, and
many of those who reach the age of a hundred are neglected, abandoned or sent to care-
homes. Finally, the elderly may be entitled to a state pension and will probably require
expensive medical treatment. This is money which the authorities would rather spend on
healthcare and education for the young.
In conclusion, although hundred-year-olds can be fulfilled and contented and can benefit
those around them, it is often the case that they struggle with debilitating medical
conditions and loneliness, and that they feel unwanted and surplus to requirement. We
should recognise this and consider how best to help them.
Private tutors
Many parents today pay for private tutors to teach their children after school hours. Do
you think this is a positive or negative development?

It is increasingly common for families to employ teachers to help their sons and daughters
with schoolwork during evenings and weekends. Although this can certainly be beneficial,
I agree with experts in education and child-rearing who express concerns about the
practice.
It has to be acknowledged that pupils who receive extra tuition are likely to succeed. Their
exam results may well improve and their attitude towards schooling could easily get
better. These fortunate individuals will probably leave education with decent
qualifications and manage to get a rewarding and well-paid job.
However, we should not ignore the potential downsides. Firstly, youngsters who spend
time being tutored obviously have less opportunity to relax and play. Experts suggest that
this may affect their imagination and social skills. In addition, they do not enjoy as much
quality time with family members as their peers. Research has indicated that this has
potentially negative consequences for a child’s emotional growth. Just as worrying is the
fact that children in this situation often feel under pressure. They are aware that a great
deal of money has been spent on their learning and feel they must do brilliantly in the
classroom. Finally, this issue should be viewed from a social perspective: only affluent
parents can afford expensive tutors who get the best results. This exacerbates the
inequality which already exists within society.
In conclusion, as has been indicated in the previous paragraphs, bringing in a teacher to
support your child may seem wise, but has significant drawbacks. Although we should do
everything within our power to enable children to flourish and prosper, parents need to
appreciate that this well-intentioned approach may do more harm than good.
Smoking
Some businesses now say that no-one can smoke cigarettes in any of their offices. Some
governments have banned smoking in all public places. Do you agree or disagree with
this?

In many areas, there has been a fundamental shift in attitudes towards cigarette smoking.
It tends to be viewed as a disgusting and dangerous habit, and has been outlawed in
workplaces and public spaces. I am immensely pleased by this development, which is a
significant step in the right direction.
Restricting cigarette use is beneficial to the health of smokers and non-smokers alike.
There is abundant scientific evidence which proves that cigarettes are hugely detrimental
to those who use them, and those who passively inhale smoke. Lung cancer can be caused
by nicotine and other chemical substances found in cigarettes, and millions have had their
lives cut short by this dreadful condition. Similarly, respiratory diseases such as asthma
and bronchitis affect everyone who breathes in cigarette smoke, especially children.
This approach brings numerous economic benefits to companies and the national
economy. Employees working in smoke-free environments take fewer days off sick. This
has the result of improving a firm’s productivity and profitability. Likewise, hospitals do
not have to treat as many patients with life-threatening conditions. This might allow the
authorities to spend less on healthcare and invest more in social care or vital
infrastructure projects which improve the quality of life for all. Finally, a country with a
cleaner environment is likely to attract a larger number of foreign tourists, leading to job
creation in the service sector and an improved standard of living for many.
In conclusion, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that businesses and political
leaders are right to prohibit smoking outside the home. This measure is enormously
positive for every single citizen and worker. I wish that every nation and employer on
Earth would adopt this approach.
Young adults
At the present time, the population of some countries includes a relatively large number
of young adults, compared with the number of older people. Do you think that the
advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

Particularly in developing countries, the proportion of inhabitants in their twenties and

thirties has reached an unprecedented level. Those who analyse demographic changes
point to both positives and negatives connected with this shift. Whilst seeing potential
drawbacks, I consider that, on balance, this increase in the percentage of younger people
is beneficial.
It would be wrong to deny that this situation brings challenges. It results in limited
economic opportunities, and younger individuals can become frustrated if they are
unemployed or have to live in cramped conditions with family members because they
cannot afford decent accommodation. When this frustration turns into anger, the older
generations sometimes feel threatened. This may cause disharmony within society.
However, the enormous economic, social and political rewards of a predominantly
youthful population should not be overlooked. Those who have recently graduated make
excellent employees. They are innovative, creative and dynamic. They can introduce new
ways of working which make companies more productive and profitable. In addition, a
society containing large numbers of younger adults tends to be freer, livelier and more
open. Such individuals usually have more energy and their determination to enjoy life
affects everyone positively. Finally, there is no denying that those below the age of forty
are more likely to fight for positive political change. They campaign against injustice and
inequality, and demonstrate against older politicians who seem not to care about climate
change. It is principally the young who support women’s rights, measures to tackle
poverty and a ban on single-use plastics.
In conclusion, I would argue that although difficulties may arise if younger people feel
they have few options or rights, a culture containing a significant number of younger
individuals will generally be happier, healthier and more prosperous. Middle-aged and
elderly people should welcome this state of affairs rather than fearing it.
Change
Some people prefer to spend their lives doing the same things and avoiding change.
Others, however, prefer to take risks and think that change is a positive thing. Discuss
both sides and give your own opinion.

Nobody could deny that, in our fast-paced world, things rarely stay the same. We can
choose to embrace change or try to avoid it. Whether we consider change to be positive
or negative probably depends, to a large extent, on our personality type.
Introverts tend to seek stability and fear change. This is partly because having a set
routine reduces stress and requires less cognitive activity. Life can feel a great deal more
manageable without challenges and you can operate successfully within your comfort
zone. A related point is that those who hide from change hardly ever put themselves at
risk. Life for them is significantly safer. Another explanation put forward by many who
adopt this strategy is that they find life satisfying and there is, therefore, little point in
seeking anything different.
Extroverts thrive on variety. By seeking out new experiences they give themselves the
opportunity to widen their horizons, grow emotionally, develop new skills and abilities
and increase the size of their social circle. As a result of this attitude, they are likely to
experience economic benefits. What’s more, as they try new things, they are bound to
find excitement and pleasure, and certain to escape the boredom and misery which they
believe would result from repeating the same activities again and again.
Many introverts are genuinely perplexed by the apparent need of others to constantly
search for novelty. Similarly, extroverts imagine that the lives of those who prefer stability
must be monotonous, tedious and dull. In reality, most of us would benefit from being
slightly more balanced. Those who crave adventure might actually enjoy a little calmness
and tranquillity, whilst some stimulation and an occasional challenge would brighten the
existence of those who try to keep it at a distance.
Cinema
These days, in many countries, fewer people go to the cinema to watch movies than in the
past. Why is this? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

There has been a significant drop in cinema attendances in most parts of the world.
Movie-theatres which used to be packed are now invariably half-empty. It is worth
analysing the reasons for this decline and discussing its impact.
This spectacular change in viewing habits has financial, technological and social causes.
Firstly, cinema tickets can be horrendously expensive and parents in particular are
reluctant to spend on luxuries when there are cheaper alternatives. As well as that,
enormous technological changes need to be mentioned. It is now quick and convenient to
rent a movie online and watch it on a laptop or smartphone in the comfort of your own
home. Finally, social attitudes have changed and many communal activities have become
less popular. Cultures tend to be far more individualistic than they used to be and many
prefer to watch films alone or with smaller groups of friends.
The consequences of this development are probably more negative than positive. From
the perspective of film-lovers, this represents a definite improvement. Online providers
give them greater choice for less money. However, from the viewpoint of everyone
employed by cinemas and others working in the film industry, the outlook is bleak.
Thousands have already lost their jobs, and this trend is likely to continue. Finally, it can
be argued that this development damages society. When humans spend less time
participating in activities with strangers, their sense of community is diminished. They
may begin to trust their fellow-humans less and have less empathy with them. This can
clearly have serious repercussions for society as a whole.
In conclusion, for the reasons stated above, audience figures in cinemas will probably
continue to drop. Although this is understandable, it saddens film-lovers, who are
convinced that nothing compares with the amazing experience of watching a movie on a
big screen.
Death penalty
More and more serious crimes seem to be committed each year. Some think that the
death penalty is the best way to deal with this problem while other people think different
measures are more likely to be successful. Discuss both options.

There is an ongoing debate about the most effective ways to deal with heinous crimes
such as murder, torture and rape. Advocates of capital punishment claim it is the most
appropriate response, while more liberal-minded experts put forward a range of
alternatives. These differing approaches clearly need to be examined.
Those who advocate taking the lives of convicted killers and rapists make several points.
They remind us that a prisoner who has been put to death can never re-offend. This is
certainly not true of other forms of punishment. They also claim that the death penalty
acts as a deterrent: would-be killers decide not to carry out their plans because they fear
the consequences. Again, this cannot be said of strategies like rehabilitation programmes.
Finally, proponents suggest that it is far cheaper than other approaches to serious crime
such as imprisonment or re-education.
Opponents of capital punishment reject some of these arguments and put forward others.
They dispute the assertion that the death penalty is comparatively inexpensive, citing
legal cases which have gone on for decades and proved immensely costly. In addition,
they believe that the prospect of being hanged or electrocuted rarely deters villains, and
point to findings by psychologists which support this view. They often state that using
prison is by far the most effective policy and that attempting to rehabilitate inmates so
that they can become law-abiding and productive citizens is the only humane way of
dealing with horrific crime.
In conclusion, it seems fair to say that this issue is complex and agreement between
victims, law-makers and criminologists is unlikely. There are vehemently-held views on
both sides. I would urge governments to carry out extensive research into the effects of
different punishments in order to try to reach a definitive understanding of the
consequences of these different approaches.
Endorsements
Many sports players advertise sports-related products. What are the advantages and
disadvantages of this?

Over recent years, there has been a sharp increase in the number of commercials in which
famous footballers, tennis-players and swimmers endorse equipment which they claim to
use or energy drinks which they promise will improve our performance. Some
commentators see this as positive whilst other experts have grave reservations.
This type of advertising can be beneficial in a couple of ways. Firstly, if the items being
promoted by world-famous sportsmen and sportswomen are genuinely effective, the fans
who buy them will perform better when they use them. Consequently, they may develop
greater self-confidence as they improve. They might play more sport as a result, which will
develop their fitness. In addition, many youngsters derive great pleasure from copying
their heroes. Wearing the same trainers and headband, using the same racket or goggles,
and even putting on an identical muscle-relaxing cream to their idol’s gives teenagers in
particular enjoyment, confidence and a sense of identity.
However, the negative aspects of this practice need to be mentioned. The first thing to
highlight is that top sports-stars are role models to their supporters and it is easy for them
to exploit vulnerable followers. Companies which produce sportswear understand this,
and desperately try to persuade well-known athletes to endorse their goods. Some stars
promote products which they would never dream of using, and this is morally wrong. It
should also be noted that purchasing items in order to be similar to a sporting superstar is
not necessarily healthy. Adverts which encourage the public to buy certain brands may be
doing psychological damage. Consumers need to know that success is achieved through
dedication, commitment and effort rather than by buying a pair of Nike shorts.
Obviously, this practice can have both positive and negative consequences. Overall, I am
personally wary about this type of endorsement and fear that it may be harmful. I would
like to see social scientists carrying out research to determine what effects it actually has,
especially on vulnerable youngsters.
Environment: government or individuals
Some people say that protecting the environment is the government’s responsibility.
Others believe that every individual should take responsibility for it. Discuss both views
and give your own opinion.

The looming ecological crisis is perhaps the most pressing issue facing humanity. The
question of whether politicians or members of the public need to take charge of tackling
climate change is of fundamental importance.
The authorities obviously must play a part in several ways. Those in power have the ability
to introduce legislation which can have a huge impact. Laws can be brought in which cut
carbon emissions by limiting the use of motorized vehicles, and which prevent the sale of
single-use plastics. Similarly, policy-makers can manipulate taxation and spending to
encourage passengers to take public transport and discourage them from flying. Finally,
Minsters can launch advertising campaigns and educational programmes in schools to
persuade ordinary people to behave differently.
However, each and every one of us has a huge role in protecting the planet. There are
numerous simple steps which householders should take, such as turning off electronic
equipment when it is not needed, only using heating and lighting when absolutely
necessary, and buying locally-sourced food. Consumers could purchase fewer items of
clothing and recycle what they already own, and motorists should leave their car at home
whenever possible, or drive an electric one. Finally, voters should consider protesting and
making it abundantly clear to their leaders that they expect political action on this matter.
It seems reasonable to conclude that the environmental crisis is so overwhelming that
unless political leaders and the public unite to confront it, the prospects for future
generations will be bleak. Only if governments and individuals put pressure on each other
to change, will progress be made.
Teachers
Fewer and fewer young people are choosing to become teachers. Why do young people
not want to be teachers? How could this be changed?

Over recent decades, a reduction in the number of graduates choosing to become

classroom teachers has been reported. The reasons for this worrying trend clearly need to
be analysed, and ways of encouraging university-leavers to enter the teaching profession
have to be found.
The fall in popularity of teaching is related to economic and social factors, as well as
health concerns. Firstly, salaries paid by schools are comparatively low. Well-qualified
graduates can usually earn more by working in the financial sector, industry or even
tourism. In addition, teachers no longer benefit from the respect they previously enjoyed.
Those working in education used to have the same social status as lawyers, doctors and
scientists. This is not now the case. Finally, the job seems extremely unattractive.
Potential teachers are put off by the thought of long working hours and disruptive
students. It is widely acknowledged that many working in primary schools or secondary
education suffer from stress, depression and other mental and emotional conditions.
A range of strategies might be used to arrest this decline. Firstly, Ministers of Education
should give teachers a pay-rise or offer financial incentives to newly-qualified recruits or
those who prove to be successful. This would make the profession a more attractive
proposition. In addition, governments ought to launch awareness-raising campaigns to
remind the general public about the importance and value of teachers. This might begin to
restore teachers' status as valued citizens. Finally, steps could be taken to reduce the
workload of teaching staff and give them powers to discipline poorly-behaved children.
This could make teaching a far more pleasant experience.
In conclusion, measures could be introduced to reverse this trend and raise the number of
applicants for jobs in schools. However, I am not wildly optimistic that governments will
prioritise this issue. It seems likely that there will be an ongoing decline in both the quality
and the quantity of teachers. From everyone’s perspective, this is a shame.
Dangerous sports
People doing dangerous sporting activities like scuba-diving and bungee-jumping should
be responsible for their own safety. Rescue workers should not risk their lives to save
people doing those sports. Do you agree or disagree?

There has been a massive growth in participation in potentially life-threatening

recreational activities such as base-jumping and rock-climbing. Each year, members of the
emergency services have to put themselves in danger to save the lives of extreme sports
enthusiasts who have had accidents. Whilst some find this state of affairs unacceptable, I
feel societies have a duty to look after even those who willfully endanger their own lives.
The first point worth making is that risk-taking and experiencing danger ought to be
encouraged. In order to become mature and well-balanced, we need to face a range of
challenging situations and threats. Cavers and divers probably would not dare to attempt
these activities if there were no chance of them being rescued. My cousin- a hang-glider-
would undoubtedly stay at home if he thought that nobody would look for him after a
crash.
It should also be mentioned that those who help injured or stranded sportsmen and
sportswomen benefit too. Volunteers, members of the armed forces and professional
rescuers find saving lives both stimulating and deeply rewarding. These individuals feel
good about themselves, knowing that they are making a valuable contribution.
Finally, I would argue that a humane society should not abandon those in need. Going to
the aid of individuals who are seriously hurt- even when they are responsible for their
plight- is morally right. Enlightened cultures do this already: smokers who develop lung
cancer are treated; careless drivers injured in motor vehicle accidents are given medical
support; and those living in poverty receive financial aid from the state.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that we have an obligation to help anyone in peril,
regardless of the circumstances. I appreciate that adopting this strategy could lead to
others being put at risk but, on balance, it is definitely the right thing to do. I wish all
governments would subscribe to this enlightened and forward-thinking approach.
Exams
Students at school and university have to take too many tests and exams. These tests
make it harder to teach and harder to learn and put students under unnecessary pressure.
Is this a fair comment?

Schoolchildren have been asked to sit examinations for centuries. Students in every
corner of the globe are regularly tested by their teachers in academic institutions. There is
no doubt that, in the correct circumstances, testing can be a valuable tool. However, when
used wrongly or excessively, the test may become a dangerous weapon and be
detrimental both to the tutor and the learner.

Educators can point to a number of advantages of testing. Setting tests can help to
develop a positive sense of competition amongst students, which can inspire them to
learn more effectively and perform successfully. Similarly, exams can demonstrate to
pupils how much progress they have made and the areas in which they are doing well.
This could be extremely motivating. Furthermore, exams demonstrate to teachers what
their pupils have learnt and what needs to be revised later. This may make teaching more
effective.

At the same time however, it is necessary to acknowledge the potential weaknesses and
dangers associated with examining. Firstly, tests can be excessively stressful for
candidates and may even lead to nervous breakdowns or, in the worst-case scenario,
attempted suicide. Likewise, they can result in too much competitiveness between fellow-
students and those who achieve lower scores may experience lower self-esteem or suffer
from being bullied. Finally, exams can be extremely unfair. Some students consistently
achieve low exam scores despite being academically bright. These individuals are unlikely
to reach institutions of higher education, even though they deserve to.

All in all, it is fair to say that testing can be of great benefit both to those who teach and
those who study. Nevertheless, tests must be used sparingly and with caution as they can,
at times, be both damaging and unjust.
Selfishness
It is sometimes said that people who think only about themselves are happier because
they get what they want. Others say that selfish people have no friends and are usually
lonely. Why do you think some people act selfishly? Is it good to be selfish?

In reality, humans have always acted in their own self-interest. It is enormously

interesting to examine the reasons for selfish behaviour, and also worth discussing
whether putting our own interests, needs and desires ahead of those of our fellow-
humans makes sense.
Selfishness probably has a biological basis. Unless we are able to meet our basic
requirements for food, warmth and shelter we will die. Anyone lacking a selfish gene
probably would not survive long enough to re-produce. In the modern competitive world,
we have to fight for what we want. We are constantly attempting to secure better
resources or a better quality of life than those who surround us. We want the best job, the
most comfortable house, the most luxurious car and, of course, the most attractive mate.
These things can only be achieved if we compete against our colleagues, acquaintances,
friends, neighbours, fellow-applicants or classmates.
Behaving in this way can be beneficial. It makes us determined to achieve more. Most top
sport-stars, leading scientists, celebrities and business executives have been motivated to
work hard by their selfishness. Nevertheless, we need to acknowledge a negative side:
selfishness can lead us to become greedy, heartless and manipulative. If we only think
about ourselves, we may lose our friends and even become evil. Clearly, humans need to
limit their egotism and remember to be kind-hearted, generous and altruistic.
Having thought about this issue in some depth, I have reached the view that selfishness is
probably a natural human characteristic. In moderation it can be useful, but it certainly
has a darker side. It would make sense for parents and teachers to instruct children in
how to use selfishness positively and combine it with the equally human trait of kindness
to others.
Advertising
Our televisions, computer screens and streets are full of adverts for goods and services.
Some experts say that advertising has a positive impact whereas others see it as
dangerous. What is your opinion?

There is no doubt that advertising is everywhere. In the globalised twenty-first century

world, we are bombarded with commercials. They pop up on our electronic devices,
appear on websites and constantly interrupt television programmes. Despite the fact that
advertisements can entertain, I believe that they are almost entirely detrimental to
society.
As far as I am concerned, the most worrying aspect of commercials is that they portray
dangerous stereotypes. Adverts tend to depict men as powerful and intelligent and
women as submissive, helpless individuals whose role is to please men or look after
children. Unfortunately, TV viewers and internet-users are influenced by these portrayals
and may start to believe them. This creates a sexist society in which women in particular
are under-valued and lack equality.
A further reason to be apprehensive about adverts is that they create greed. Consumers
see products and services advertised and become desperate to purchase and possess
them. Social scientists who have studied this phenomenon claim that this desire to
consume leads to a materialistic society, family breakdown, psychological illness and
many other unwanted consequences.
The final point worth making is connected to price. Most economists would agree that
adverts raise the costs of manufacturers and producers as they have to pay media outlets
a huge amount of money to put their commercials on television and electronic media as
well as in glossy magazines and newspapers. Clearly, it is not in the interests of ordinary
individuals to pay more. Although members of the public say that they find advertising
amusing, they might not think it was so funny if they realised the full cost.
Overall, I feel that advertisements are harmful, damaging and insidious. They affect
society in negative ways. I wish that governments around the world would pass laws
making adverts illegal or at least restricting their use. This single step would contribute
greatly to our happiness.
Nature versus nurture
Some experts say that the best sports stars, artists and scientists are born with great
talent which other people do not have. Other experts say that any child can learn to be
one of the best in these areas. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

The question of whether genius and exceptional ability are the result of biological or
environmental factors has been argued over for generations. The ‘nature-nurture’ debate
has never been fully resolved. It seems almost certain that gifted individuals owe their
brilliance both to their upbringing and their genetic make-up.

It is beyond doubt that a person’s environment- including how they are educated and
trained- plays a vital role in development. Many individuals are taught skills such as
playing the violin to an extremely high level. Practice leads to significant improvement
and those who spend the greatest amount of time mastering a skill often reap the
greatest rewards. For example, the world’s most amazing classical guitarists spend
literally years in the practice room.

However, it should be pointed out that world-class athletes and skilled players of musical
instruments probably start with a genetic advantage. It may be that they are naturally
stronger or possess the ability to concentrate for longer periods. Some scientific studies
have suggested that the brains of pianists, for example, are different at birth from those
of less musical children. It is very likely that- as a result of this biological superiority-
talented sportsmen and musicians succeed in their particular discipline, which encourages
them to continue. The picture is presumably similar for top scientists, engineers and
computer programmers. They exploit their biological strengths in a supportive
environment.
In conclusion, it is surely wrong to argue simplistically that a baby is born with a natural
ability to thrive in a specific field or that children are born as ‘blank slates’ and can learn
to do anything to a high level if they practise hard enough. The truth appears to be that
there is a complex interaction between these two factors, which leads certain gifted and
fortunate individuals to become superstars or academic genii.
Prison
When people commit serious crime in most countries, they are sent to prison. What are
the advantages and disadvantages of this approach?

Since time immemorial, forms of detention have been used to punish offenders.
Individuals found guilty of serious or violent crimes such as armed robbery, large-scale
fraud, arson or manslaughter can expect a custodial sentence. Social scientists have often
wondered about the merits and dangers of sending convicts to jail. This essay will
examine the pros and cons of using prison as a punishment.
There are several reasons why lawyers, judges, victims and members of the public
advocate locking offenders up. Firstly, there is the principle of retribution: a bank robber,
burglar or fraudster must be punished for the crime committed. In addition, many
supporters put forward the notion of deterrent. Those thinking of criminal activity, it is
argued, might decide against it because they know that a harsh prison term awaits them.
Finally, prison fulfils the important role of stopping inmates committing crimes. At least
while they are detained, convicts cannot re-offend.
However, opponents of the use of detention are equally vociferous. They believe that
locking a convict in a cell is incredibly expensive. Furthermore, many suggest that this
form of punishment completely fails to rehabilitate offenders. When they are released, a
significant proportion go on to commit more crimes. Finally, it has been claimed that
whilst in jail, mixing with other inmates, prisoners learn to become better criminals.
Prison is sometimes referred to as the ‘university of crime’.
It is likely that punishing wrong-doers by denying them their freedom will carry on. This
approach will continue to have both proponents and detractors. It would be sensible for
the authorities to examine the effectiveness of this policy from a scientific perspective. It
would be useful to know in what circumstances imprisonment is successful and under
which conditions it fails. This knowledge could guide future policy.
Racism
As more and more people move from one country to another, levels of racism have
grown. Is it the responsibility of governments to tackle racism and, if it is, what should
they do?

Racist attitudes and behaviour have probably been with us since the earliest interactions
of humans from different ethnic backgrounds. Some psychologists believe that racism is a
way of defining our social group as different from others. However, even though it may be
partly understandable, those in power should take steps to ensure that nobody is treated
differently because of their ethnicity or race. Our political leaders are uniquely placed to
intervene.
The first area which governments need to target is education. All youngsters- from pre-
school infants attending nurseries to undergraduates at institutions of higher education-
should be taught to identify, challenge and oppose racial prejudice and aggression
wherever they see it. Youngsters need to learn how it feels to be racially abused and they
must be given the opportunity to embrace difference and diversity rather than feeling
threatened by it. The Minister of Education can ensure that this happens.
In conjunction with this approach, the powers-that-be must confront the media.
Websites, newspapers and TV programmes sometimes contain racist stereotypes and
negative images of those from ethnic minorities or individuals with different skin colour.
Politicians should appoint knowledgeable specialists to monitor and check media outlets.
Those in charge of the press and TV channels need to be made aware that racist opinions
or images will not be tolerated.
The third and final part of a national strategy should be related to law-enforcement.
Stronger legislation should be brought in to punish anyone guilty of racist abuse or
violence. All members of the public should realise that we live in a society where this kind
of behaviour is unacceptable and will lead to a custodial sentence.
Of course, individuals have a role in stamping out racism. We must stand up to racists.
However, political leaders have by far the greatest power to rid our society of this hateful
and vile abuse.
Studying art at school
These days, more and more schools focus on science and social science subjects and
choose not to teach children to sing, paint, sculpt, write creatively or dance. Should
school-children study the arts?

In the past, schools and academic institutions tended to focus on giving their pupils and
students a well-rounded education. These days, the curriculum is often crammed with
more academic classes and lessons in the arts have often disappeared altogether. The
decision to prioritise science and social science over the arts is deeply troubling.
Probably the most significant reason for teaching singing, dance and painting relates to
self-expression. Human beings desperately need to show their feelings and express their
emotions. The easiest and most effective way to achieve this is through writing poetry or
interpreting a piece of classical music on the violin or flute. Although classes in physics or
business studies can help us develop vital thinking strategies, they do not offer youngsters
the chance to explore new ways of interpreting their world.
Connected to this point is the notion of balance. A person who understands everything
from a scientific perspective can hardly be described as well-rounded and mature. Indeed,
research suggests that the best scientists and business leaders tend to love creative
activities such as drawing. It therefore seems that studying the arts has major intellectual
benefits for those who wish to be scientific researchers or business executives.
Finally, one often overlooked point is that children enjoy the arts. Young learners have fun
developing skills like sculpting. They adore both the practical aspects of painting or singing
and the more technical or theoretical elements. When academic study can be so tedious
and seemingly pointless, it is essential to offer pupils something which they can be
enthusiastic about.
Overall, I would say that the arts should play a major role in a child’s education and
upbringing. I wholeheartedly believe that those in charge of the curriculum ought to
ensure that subjects which develop creativity and imagination can be found on every
pupil’s timetable.
Supporting weaker students
Many students struggle in class and do not leave school with good educational
qualifications. Why do some pupils struggle? What do you think should be done to help
students who find studying difficult?

School is not a positive experience for everyone. Although some youngsters thrive in class,
many teenagers are desperate to leave formal education and do so without recognised
qualifications and with few relevant skills. We clearly need to understand the causes of
this unacceptable situation so that we can tackle it.
Many of the reasons why some youths have such a negative experience in the classroom
are connected to the quality of teaching. Tutors are often obliged to teach subjects- such
as algebra, physics or geography- which seem entirely irrelevant to their pupils.
Sometimes the material used is too hard or too easy. Regularly, incompetent,
unmotivated or uncaring teachers are unable to control and inspire their students, leading
to high levels of disruption and even truancy or bullying.
Other reasons for poor performance in school are related to the wider society. We live in a
world which values wealth and physical appearance but not necessarily intelligence or the
acquisition of knowledge. Those who excel at school do not tend to have high social
status. It is not therefore surprising that younger people are unwilling to put effort into
completing assignments or passing assessments.
Probably the most effective approach would be to focus on the quality of teachers, the
curriculum and course content. It is essential that those who work in the education
profession are well-respected and well-remunerated. It is equally vital that teachers
lacking the necessary abilities are re-trained or dismissed. Similarly, experts in pedagogy
need to assess the course-books and websites used to ensure that they are relevant and
appropriate. Making fundamental changes in social attitudes could also radically improve
students’ performance. However, this would require a huge amount of work and may not
be achievable in the short run.
Overall, it is essential to recognise that improving academic standards needs to be a
priority. Making sure that young learners who experience difficulty are supported could
reap massive rewards. A society in which everyone was well-educated would certainly be
healthier, more peaceful, and more prosperous.
Terrorism
In a response to the perceived threat of terrorism, security measures in many of the
world’s major cities have been increased significantly in recent years. Do the benefits of
having increased security outweigh the drawbacks?

Nowadays, most major urban centres have higher levels of security than they used to:
armed police officers, sniffer dogs and surveillance cameras are deployed. Terrorism
experts sometimes explain that this is a necessary deterrent and the best possible
strategy to save lives. However, to a large extent, I support campaigners for civil liberties
who express genuine concerns.
The first question we should discuss is whether anti-terrorism measures actually reduce
terrorism. It is extremely difficult to know, though the security forces and law-
enforcement agencies claim that they do. They suggest that without tightened security,
city-dwellers would face the threat of bomb explosions, hijackings and shootings on a
daily basis.
However, it is worth pointing out that this approach may be detrimental. Commuters,
shoppers, restaurant-goers and tourists are likely to experience fear or anxiety when they
see police officers carrying guns or security cameras pointing at them. This affects the
quality of life for locals and can have economic implications if tourists choose to go
elsewhere because of the changes.
Such an approach may be counterproductive: a remarkable study has discovered that
having more police officers and surveillance technology can actually, almost unbelievably,
contribute to an increase in terrorism and violence. Furthermore, heightened security can
lead to restrictions on freedom of movement, speech and association and to the
authorities becoming too powerful. Governments can start justifying almost any policy as
necessary counter-terrorism. This is clearly a potential danger.
Overall, it seems reasonable to conclude that implementing policies aimed at preventing
terror attacks has more drawbacks than benefits. Although these strategies may save lives
they are likely to have negative repercussions and ministers should think carefully before
bringing them in.
Travelling with friends
Some people prefer to go on holiday with family or friends. Other people prefer to go on
holiday alone. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these two options?

Some holiday-makers enjoy lounging on a crowded beach under a tropical sun whilst
others prefer an adventure, trekking alone across a desolate wilderness. Although the
majority take their vacations with loved-ones, there are those who cannot stand the
thought of holidaying with those they love.
Clearly, the benefits of taking a holiday with others are significant. Sharing experiences,
memories and laughter is one of the great joys of travelling with your nearest and dearest.
When you get together years later, you can look at the photos and reminisce about the
wonderful time you had. This brings people closer to each other. In addition, travelling
with others can be easier. Group accommodation tends to be cheaper and it can also be
more convenient and safer to go around in a group.
The first major downside of holidaying in a group- and the reason which tempts some to
travel alone- is that you cannot always do precisely what you want. Compromises have to
be made and if you are in the minority, you could easily find yourself spending the day
somewhere you would rather not be. This can lead to tension and even quarrels, which
can mar what is supposed to be a joyful time. Another point is that some choose to
journey on their own because they enjoy the tranquillity and solitude. Those wishing to
completely chill out, get closer to wildlife or spend time reflecting on their life or the
nature of existence are particularly likely to go alone.
In a sense, I suppose that whether you should take trips accompanied or unaccompanied
depends on what kind of person you are and what kind of experience you want. An
introvert might well get more from a hiking or bird-watching holiday without the
distraction of friends, whereas extroverts wanting to spend their days sunbathing and
their nights partying will almost certainly want companionship.
Music
People listen to music for different reasons and at different times. Why is music important
for many people?

Anthropologists suggest that music played a key role even in the earliest human societies
and that every single culture holds singing and playing musical instruments in high regard.
Given the undisputed relevance of music, it is worth considering the function of this art
form and the reasons behind its popularity.
Both performing and listening to music- from folk-songs and traditional forms to rap and
heavy metal- have proven psychological benefits: lullabies send children to sleep; piano
concertos enable us to relax; pop music makes us want to dance and forget our worries;
powerful acoustic pieces inspire us. Music can console us in our hour of need and, on
occasions, make us feel overjoyed. There is a significant amount of evidence to suggest
that those who love music are mentally and emotionally healthy.
Another point worth mentioning relates to music’s ability to bring us together. We feel
strongly connected to others when music provokes the same emotion in all of us. For
instance, millions feel proud on hearing their national anthem. This hymn unites us with
our countrymen and countrywomen. Similarly, the world’s religions employ chants and
songs in acts of worship, helping believers to feel at one with others who hold the same
faith. In a related way, football teams and political parties use inspiring melodies to unite
their supporters.
Finally, the tremendous ability of music to help us recall past memories should not be
forgotten. Hearing a beautiful sonata, aria or movie soundtrack can instantly transport us
back to a wonderful past moment. For instance, whenever I hear a certain piece of jazz it
reminds me of my joyful days as an undergraduate. Music appears to be unique in
creating this heart-warming feeling of nostalgia.
Music is a fundamental element in most individuals’ lives. It allows us to feel great
happiness and a sense of connection with others, as well as enabling us to recollect
previous experiences. Above all, music makes us feel human and that is why it is adored.
Politicians and scientists
Who has the greater influence on the world: politicians or scientists?

Especially over the last few centuries, individuals involved in the worlds of politics and
science have come to dominate major aspects of our lives. It can be argued that whilst
those in government affect us significantly in the short run, researchers and
experimenters have the greater long-term effect.
In democratic and autocratic political systems alike, government ministers and those close
to presidents and prime-ministers wield a remarkable degree of authority. They make
decisions which have an immediate, short-term impact on society. Political leaders are
able to choose to declare war or sign an international peace treaty, to raise or cut taxes or
government expenditure on education, transport or defence. Critically, members of the
government can decide to provide or withhold funding for scientists. For instance,
research into stem cells, cures for cancer, bio-technology, space exploration or nuclear
fusion can effectively be switched on or off at the behest of a politician.
However, in the long run, the type of power exerted by scientists is even more significant.
They can radically change the quality of life of every human on the planet, as well as that
of future generations. They can find cures to terrible medical conditions such as malaria.
In addition, they are able to carry out research which might solve the looming ecological
crisis by providing energy sources which are not carbon-based. Those doing research in
chemistry, physics or biology may make essential discoveries in the worlds of
pharmaceuticals, quantum mechanics and micro-organisms respectively. Their findings
might save our civilisation.
To summarise, the issue of whether politicians or scientists have the greatest influence is
tremendously difficult to answer. The quality of our lives can be enhanced or severely
diminished by the actions of both of these groups. However, although political leaders
might control our lives today, scientific experts probably exert greater influence on our
lives tomorrow.
Leaving school
In some countries, children under 16 years old are not allowed by law to leave school and
get full-time work. Is this a good or bad thing? Discuss your opinion.

Attitudes towards the school-leaving age vary from region to region. Some governments
permit those aged sixteen to stop studying and seek employment instead whilst others
expect adolescents to continue in further or higher education. Which approach is more
sensible depends on the nation’s economic requirements and the wishes of the children
concerned.
Political leaders should formulate policies based on the needs of the state. If a country is
experiencing a shortage of manual workers, it makes sense to give teenagers the right to
take these jobs. Similarly, if there is a lack of highly-qualified doctors, lawyers and
engineers, those in power need to incentivize youngsters to remain in full-time education
and prevent them from abandoning their studies early. This is precisely what has
happened in several developing nations.
Obviously, the appropriate approach may change, according to a child’s goals, strengths
and aspirations. Those who thrive in an educational setting and perform well in
examinations should be encouraged to go to colleges and universities. However, there is
little point forcing unwilling students to attend. They will respond by misbehaving,
disrupting classes, refusing to work and playing truant. My own experience provides
support for this point: I endured two years of poor-quality classes because the tutors had
to concentrate on controlling poorly-behaved classmates who would have felt more
fulfilled elsewhere.
Having considered this matter in some depth, I have reached the conclusion that a flexible
approach is necessary. It would be sensible for Ministries of Education to offer the best of
both worlds: seventeen-year-olds could be offered apprenticeships, which allow them to
combine work and study. Similarly, colleges could link their academic programmes to
relevant work-based skills. These strategies would be popular, allowing everyone involved
to succeed.
Free speech
For many, being allowed to say what you want without fear of punishment is a basic
human right. Why do people believe in the freedom of speech? Will the huge
technological changes affecting us make it easier or more difficult for citizens to enjoy
freedom of speech?

Most agree that we should all be entitled to express ourselves in whichever way we want.
Nonetheless, it has been pointed out that advances in technology could enable those in
power to prevent citizens from publicly stating their opinions. The questions of why the
right to free speech is vital and how advances in computing might challenge this right are
worth considering.
Permitting everyone to freely communicate their beliefs benefits individuals and society
alike. When we are free, we feel more fulfilled and more creative, and the absence of fear
promotes happiness. In addition, not having to worry about the consequences of what
you say makes it easier to trust others. This leads to society being more cohesive and
united. Furthermore, enshrining this right in law strengthens the state politically: those
allowed to speak their minds are less likely to want to bring down the government.
Finally, until recently, there has been a practical consideration: monitoring what everyone
says would have taken vast resources, as it did in former East Germany and other
totalitarian states.
Troublingly, over a dramatically brief period, the situation has changed and political
leaders have become capable of monitoring the public and curbing free speech. Owing to
the revolution in interactive technology, the secret services are now able to police social
media and collect huge amounts of data, which officials might be tempted to analyze.
Governments have always wanted control over the population and some have already
used the justification that ‘snooping’ is necessary in order to fight terrorism. This is clearly
a worrying development.
The right to express oneself is fundamental, and we should staunchly defend it. We need
to be concerned that new technology may potentially allow our leaders to curtail it.
Nearly all nations are signatories to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and must
promise to uphold this precious right.
•
School uniform
In some countries, schoolchildren wear a uniform. In others, they can wear whatever they
want at school. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having school uniforms?

It is not uncommon to see pupils in class wearing identical shirts, ties, blazers, trousers or
skirts. Many experts wholeheartedly believe in the merits of compelling students to wear
specific clothes at primary or secondary school. However, there are critics who see
uniforms as detrimental.
One key reason which supporters of uniforms point to relates to fairness. If all children are
obliged to wear clothes which look exactly the same, youngsters cannot be picked on or
bullied for being less fashion-conscious or for not being wealthy enough to afford top-
quality or trendy jeans and trainers.
A second point worth considering is connected to unity. Schoolchildren develop a feeling
of pride and belonging when they put on their uniform. The uniform promotes harmony,
togetherness and mutual respect. It is highly likely that educational establishments where
uniforms are compulsory actually experience lower levels of bullying and fewer problems
with discipline.
However, detractors maintain that having a uniform is a violation of the freedom of
choice. They believe that we have the right to express ourselves in whichever ways we
want. This includes the right to wear what we choose to. It is thought by some that forcing
young children and adolescents to put on uniforms represses creativity and self-
expression.
It is also wroth pointing out that uniforms can be almost prohibitively expensive for
families on lower incomes. They simply cannot afford the costly outfits. Many parents
bitterly complain that it would be far cheaper if their sons and daughters were allowed to
attend classes wearing clothes which they already owned.
This debate is unlikely to die down any time soon. A practical compromise might involve
schools asking their pupils to wear uniform but giving some limited choice in colour and
style, and ensuring that the price is kept as low as possible.
Elderly relatives
There are many elderly people in the world. It is unfair that their families should be
expected to look after them. This is the job of the state. Do you agree?

Figures published recently suggest that the proportion of retired individuals in society is
on the rise. This demographic pattern has ignited a debate on how those in their
seventies, eighties and nineties are looked after. Whilst recognising that, in some
circumstances, the state should be involved, I generally feel that despite their busy
schedules, families ought to play a major role in the care of elderly relatives.
There are several reasons why we should look after our grandparents and parents in their
later years. Firstly, these are the people who fed, clothed and protected us when we were
vulnerable children. They are entitled to expect similar treatment from us and it is fair
that we provide it. In addition, developing strong family links is beneficial to everyone: I
found taking care of my frail grandmother to be a rewarding and fulfilling experience
rather than a burden or chore. Finally, this approach is morally right. None of us would
like to live in a society which abandons the elderly. We ourselves will be old soon.
However, it has to be acknowledged that, in some cases, the state needs to intervene. It
may be that, as a result of family breakdown or a bereavement, there are no relatives
willing or able to take care of older family members. Furthermore, some pensioners suffer
from such extreme medical conditions that professional support is essential. It would be
unreasonable to expect working-age adults to provide this degree of commitment. It
should also be noted that many retirees fiercely defend their independence and
stubbornly refuse help. In these situations, relatives may be powerless to do anything and
it would be wrong of them to try.
In conclusion, this is obviously a complex issue which can be viewed from different
perspectives. Nonetheless, I am convinced that reducing the number of old people in care-
homes and increasing the involvement of families would be a positive step. Governments
could certainly help: I would urge those in power to offer financial incentives and training
to encourage younger adults to do more.
Labour-saving devices
Many things which were done in the home by hand in the past are now done by machines.
Does this development bring more advantages or disadvantages?

Domestic life across the globe has undergone a revolution. Chores which used to be done
manually are now completed by dishwashers, food processors and electric sewing
machines. It can be argued that this trend benefits individuals and society alike in the
short term but that it has negative long-term repercussions for the planet as a whole.
The process of mechanisation in the home undoubtedly saves time and energy.
Overworked and exhausted adults no longer have to worry about tedious tasks. This
means they can enjoy themselves and spend quality time with loved-ones. Women in
particular reap the rewards as, in former times, they tended to be responsible for most of
the laborious housework. To an extent, females have been liberated. They have the
opportunity either to work and become economically independent or to socialise, instead
of scrubbing floors or chopping vegetables.
Another positive effect is that the introduction of labour-saving devices has led to
improved job prospects: workers are hired to manufacture, sell, deliver, install and repair
the equipment. This increase in employment levels clearly benefits the economy and leads
to superior living standards.
However, the popularity of these products has unwanted environmental consequences.
Machines including vacuum cleaners and washing machines are made using non-
renewable and relatively scarce resources. When used, they are powered by large
quantities of electricity, which is often obtained by burning fossil fuels. This obviously
causes an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Furthermore, as these items are deliberately designed only to last for a limited period,
they soon have to be replaced and are thrown into landfill sites, which puts additional
pressure on the ecosystem.
In conclusion, there seems no doubt that householders will continue to purchase gadgets
and devices which make their lives easier. However, although we should not ignore the
positive social and economic impact of this trend, we need to acknowledge that it is
contributing to and hastening the ecological disaster which scientists warn about. I would
urge political leaders to fund projects to develop machines which make life convenient
without destroying The Earth. Otherwise, future generations may struggle to forgive us.
Buying a house
In some countries, people prefer to rent a house to live in, while in other countries people
prefer to buy their own house. Does renting a house have more advantages or
disadvantages than buying a house?

The type of accommodation which an individual or group chooses depends on a variety of

factors. Probably the most significant of these is age. In the remainder of this essay I aim
to explain why, in many cultures, renting tends to be more suitable for younger adults
whereas purchasing a home makes sense for anyone in their thirties, forties or even
fifties.
Those who have recently ‘flown the nest’ generally either want to rent or are forced to do
so. Firstly, there is a major practical consideration: unless they are funded by wealthy
relatives, it is unlikely that younger adults will have the financial means to purchase a
property. Obviously, banks will be unwilling to offer them a mortgage until they can build
up savings or get a well-paid job. It should also be noted that renting is usually an
attractive proposition for those who have just left full-time education and joined the adult
world. It gives them the flexibility to move from place to place, which they welcome as
they are not yet ready to settle down. In addition, youngsters sometimes wish to share a
home with friends and this is far simpler to achieve through renting.
However, as we mature and either marry or develop long-term relationships, our
priorities change. Older individuals crave the stability and security which owning your
own home provides. They find the idea of residing in the same location for decades
extremely attractive and take great pleasure in making adjustments and improvements to
their property. Especially for middle-class professionals, owning a spacious semi-detached
house in the suburbs is a status symbol, a sign that they have achieved and succeeded.
Clearly, these individuals have the economic resources to purchase a home or at least to
get a loan.
In conclusion, it seems that a person’s attitude to home ownership is strongly determined
by age and personal circumstances. It is therefore difficult to give a definitive answer to
this question. I hope that everyone who is fortunate enough to be able to choose will
consider the options carefully before reaching a decision.
Sleep
These days, people seem to spend less time sleeping than in the past. What are the
reasons for this change? Is it a positive or a negative development?

Investigations regularly indicate that, on average, we sleep far less than previous
generations. The causes of this clearly worrying shift in behaviour need to be examined.
This alteration has been driven by a range of inter-related economic and social factors.
Firstly, as a result of globalisation and technological developments, those in employment
are obliged to work longer hours in order to earn a decent living. Many have to do twelve-
hour shifts or respond to work-related emails and texts when they should be asleep. In
addition, addictive social media has contributed to this phenomenon: it is considered
normal to take smartphones to bed and spend hours online when we ought to be resting.
It should also be pointed out that adolescents and young adults in particular feel
pressurised into being constantly active and awake. Those who sleep significantly more
than their peers may be criticised as lazy under-achievers.
However, anyone who underestimates the importance of a good night’s sleep is seriously
mistaken. Well-rested employees have been shown to be more productive: they have
superior levels of concentration to their sleep-deprived colleagues. They are more
creative, better at cooperating with fellow-workers and able to work independently for
longer. Similarly, it is undoubtedly wrong to suppose that staying up late is good for
wellbeing. Countless studies have found a link between insufficient sleep and poor health.
Individuals who are constantly tired are prone to depression and other emotional illnesses
as well as physical conditions like influenza and migraines.
Having considered the matter in some detail, I find the trend of sleeping less extremely
troubling. It is detrimental to individuals and to society as a whole. I wish medical
professionals and government ministers would extol the virtues of sleeping properly. This
might raise awareness of the health issues and persuade people to take this issue
seriously. This could have tremendous long-term benefits for all of us.
Speed limit
Some people believe that lowering the speed limit is the best way to improve road safety.
Others think that there are other ways to make roads safer. Discuss these two options and
give your opinion.

Statistics indicate that the number of road-traffic accidents is climbing steadily year on
year and that, tragically, schoolchildren are at the greatest risk. This situation has
prompted some motoring experts to propose reducing the maximum speed permitted,
whilst others put forward alternative strategies. This essay will examine both approaches
and suggest that a wide-ranging response would be appropriate.
Making it illegal to drive above a certain speed could undoubtedly lead to a fall in
fatalities. Accidents would be less serious and more drivers, passengers and pedestrians
would survive them. This would mean fewer lives needlessly cut short and fewer grieving
relatives. However, such a measure would frustrate those behind the wheel of a car by
lengthening journey times and potentially increasing the likelihood of traffic jams,
congestion and gridlock.
Governments have the power to introduce other life-saving policies. For instance, the
wearing of seat-belts could be made compulsory and car-users might be forced to re-take
their driving test on an annual basis. Road surfaces ought to be improved and advertising
campaigns which raise awareness about the perils of driving should be launched. These
relatively simple and straightforward measures would certainly be cost-effective in the
long run and would probably enjoy public approval. It needs to be admitted though, that
such policies require a level of commitment which our political leaders often lack.
Having considered the matter in some depth, I cannot see why a wide range of measures
should not be brought in. If policy-makers outlawed excessively high speeds and
introduced the other strategies mentioned above, far fewer lives would be destroyed
unnecessarily. I genuinely hope those in power will overcome the barriers, difficulties and
objections and make our streets safer and our world better.
Online study
Some people consider online study courses better than classroom studies, while others
think classroom study is better. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Thanks to technological innovations, there has unquestionably been a surge in the

popularity of internet-based learning. It has become possible to study anything from
juggling to meteorology either at college or from the comfort of your own home. Which
type of course is appropriate will depend on factors such as the personality and personal
circumstances of the student, as well as the level of difficulty of the course undertaken.
There is little doubt that some learners, especially extroverts, thrive in a social
environment whilst others, possibly introverts, enjoy working in solitude and at their own
pace. For some, being able to raise their hand in the classroom is essential; for others,
pleasure and a feeling of satisfaction come from quietly working out solutions alone.
Similarly, learners’ lifestyles will partly determine how they should study. Full-time
workers and those bringing up families are simply unable to attend classes on a regular
basis and need to study online whenever the opportunity arises. Retired individuals,
however, may have a less demanding schedule and manage to accommodate regular
evening classes in educational establishments. My octogenarian uncle exemplifies this
point: he has time on his hands and studies interior design at his local college every
Thursday.
Finally, the complexity of the material matters. For more challenging subjects such as
astrophysics it might be crucial to be able to discuss issues face-to-face in the real world.
Likewise, subjects requiring social interaction, including foreign languages, are probably
better learnt in a traditional setting. Simpler subjects possibly lend themselves better to
online study.
Overall, it seems reasonable to say that whether would-be learners choose to study online
or not is dependent upon various points. It is impossible to draw a general conclusion. We
can only hope that everyone contemplating study thinks seriously about which will be the
most rewarding method.
Working from home
Working patterns have changed a lot. Now many people work online from home. What
are the advantages and disadvantages of this way of working?

Working from home used to be considered incredibly uncommon. Employees spent their
days in factories or offices, on building sites or farms. With the surge in popularity of the
internet, seismic changes have taken place in work patterns. These days, administrators
and professionals are often based in their own homes. This radical shift has had both
positive and negative repercussions.
Probably the most obvious benefits of working from home are flexibility, convenience and
cost. To some extent, employees based in their own living-rooms can start and finish
whenever it suits them. They can fit working hours around childcare, housework and
other commitments. In addition, by not commuting, they save valuable time and avoid
having to endure the stresses of traffic jams, road congestion, finding parking spaces, or
using overcrowded train services. They cut costs as there is no need to pay parking
charges or bus fares.
However, although this arrangement might seem ideal, there are downsides. For many
members of staff, the most enjoyable aspect of work is the social interaction. The chance
to gather with colleagues and gossip, joke or chat is a pleasurable element of the working
lives of clerical staff, personal assistants and middle-managers. In addition, many working
from home complain that their work-life balance is affected. They claim that it is difficult
to switch off and wind down and that the barrier between working and relaxing becomes
blurred and hazy.
Overall, it is indisputable that working from home can be productive and satisfying.
Nevertheless, anyone considering this option needs to be aware of the potential pitfalls. It
makes sense for businesses to offer staff the chance to combine working at home and on
the company’s premises. Many enlightened and forward-thinking firms have already put
this policy into practice and I fervently hope that others will follow suit.
Major sporting events
Countries are often very keen to hold a major sporting event such as The Football World
Cup or The Olympic Games. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of holding an
important international sporting competition.

Those in charge of major nations are often desperate to stage top international football
tournaments, athletics meetings or cycle races. Governments have been known to spend
millions trying to persuade sporting organisations like The IOC to bring events to their
areas. However, although holding a tournament can be advantageous and lucrative,
potential bidders should not lose sight of the possible hazards and pitfalls.
Without doubt, the most obvious benefit is financial. New stadia, accommodation,
transportation links and other infrastructure projects go ahead. This provides a boost for
the local construction industry. Similarly, temporary service-sector jobs are created whilst
the tournament is taking place. Finally, tourism is likely to increase, providing further
economic prosperity.
A slightly less tangible advantage is related to national pride. Citizens feel rightly pleased
that their nation has managed to stage such a prestigious event. The country’s reputation
grows as it becomes connected with the success of the competition in question. This too
could translate into economic success: businesses from a country associated with
competence find it easier to do deals worldwide.
However, the downsides can be considerable. Firstly, the immense cost can exceed the
profits. A region may need to borrow capital to fund building projects and could have to
raise taxes significantly. In addition, the facilities and public amenities constructed might
rarely be required again. Finally, there is the distinct possibility that something will go
terribly wrong. Poor organisation, a transport-workers’ strike, political unrest or even a
terrorist attack could mar a city’s reputation for generations.
Evidently, cities hoping to stage The Asian Games or The European Football
Championships should recognise that, as well as substantial rewards, there are serious
risks. They might produce an internationally-acclaimed success or a total disaster. I would
recommend that political leaders think carefully before entering the bidding process.
Holidays for workers
Employers should give their employees 4 weeks holiday each year so that they can do
their job better. To what extent do you agree with this suggestion?

In certain parts of the world, companies are legally obliged to allow their staff a month of
annual leave. In other countries, workers are not entitled to any paid holiday whatsoever.
I consider that offering employees time off is beneficial both to the organisation and the
individual concerned.
This approach has significant advantages for businesses. When members of staff are able
to take holidays, they are calmer and more tranquil, leading to a better atmosphere in the
workplace. Conflict and disagreement are far less probable amongst colleagues who have
had a reasonable break. Perhaps even more importantly, workers who are fully rested
tend to be more productive and this obviously has a positive impact on profits. They will
usually have higher energy levels and the ability to put in extra effort. Finally, employees
are unlikely to take days off sick, which also means that the firm they work for will be
more successful and prosperous. Clearly, having adequate holiday periods will allow
workers to avoid serious illnesses and diseases, especially stress-related ones.
This policy also has positive implications for individuals. Workers given holiday will be
happier and will feel fulfilled. They are likely to have an excellent attitude towards the life
they lead, having spent quality time with loved-ones and having rested and relaxed
sufficiently. This may have wider, societal repercussions: having more contented workers
may well lead to a society which is more stable and whose members feel rewarded and
valued.
Overall, there is absolutely no doubt that offering staff a considerable amount of paid
vacation makes sense. It has positive consequences for workers, companies and the wider
community. I wish policy-makers around the globe would realise this and introduce
legislation in every country making a period of annual leave compulsory.
Exploitation of the planet
With the increased global demand for oil and gas, undiscovered and unspoilt areas of the
world should be opened up to get more natural resources. To what extent do you agree?

Thanks largely to our power-hungry lifestyles, we are running out of non-renewable

energy sources at alarming speed. It is predicted that by the middle of this century,
supplies will be dangerously low. One option would be to exploit pristine areas of
wilderness where large oil and gas deposits remain. Whilst seeing the need for action, I
share the concerns of conservationists, who oppose this so-called progress.
Nobody could deny that something needs to be done to avert the looming energy crisis.
Digging for oil in The Arctic might increase available energy stocks, giving experts time to
create long-term solutions to our dependence on carbon-based fuels. This is vital because
if gas and oil become scarce, many foresee a subsequent disruptive period of global
instability and social unrest. If damaging a few areas of natural beauty enables us to avoid
this nightmare scenario, the price might be worth paying.
However, environmentalists point out just how high this price may be. Drilling for oil in
areas of outstanding beauty could lead to the extinction of species and the disruption of
lives. It would leave a permanent scar on the landscape, ruining it for future generations,
who may not forgive our vandalism.
Perhaps an even more salient point is that our current way of living is unsustainable. The
globalised world would be incapable of functioning without non-renewable energy
sources. Postponing the moment when the oil-wells finally run dry by mere decades is a
short-term, short-sighted approach. We need to fundamentally re-assess our interaction
with our environment.
If we seek desperately-needed supplies of power in areas previously untouched by
exploration, it must be done with care, causing the minimum damage possible. From my
perspective, and that of any right-minded individual, it would be infinitely preferable to
confront the underlying issue and make profound changes to the way we live.
Alcohol
Alcohol plays an important part in the lives of many people. However, some problems are
connected with alcohol use. In what ways can the use of alcohol be negative for an
individual or a society? How can these problems be overcome?

The consumption of alcoholic beverages plays a major role in the lives of millions. Forms
of beer, wine and spirits have been drunk for millennia. It is said that when used
responsibly, alcohol can enhance the quality of life. However, medical experts point to the
dangers and pitfalls connected with uncontrolled drinking and urge governments to take
steps to restrict the sale of these potentially hazardous substances.
Obviously, drinking excessively can be detrimental. Consumers of alcohol may become
over-dependent or even addicted, leading to loss of employment, debt or financial ruin, a
breakdown in relationships and even criminal activity or suicidal thoughts. Naturally, this
might have far wider implications for society in general. If a significant proportion of the
population misuses alcohol, the consequences may be disastrous: productivity will fall as
workers take days off sick with hangovers and alcohol-related illnesses such as liver and
kidney failure; children will be brought up inadequately by parents who are inebriated or
absent; the crime rate will soar and burglaries, robberies and violent street-crime in
particular will rise. Society will struggle to function under these conditions.
The authorities can take measures to prevent this state of affairs. Firstly, advertising
campaigns can raise awareness amongst the general public about the perils of alcohol
overuse. Similarly, schoolchildren can be educated about the specific health risks. Political
leaders should also consider putting taxes on drinks like vodka and cider to cut
consumption. The revenue received could cover the costs of treating ill alcoholics. Finally,
strict laws ought to be brought in allowing courts to impose prison sentences on anyone
found drunk in public.
The inappropriate use of alcohol is worrying, and implementing the policies mentioned in
the previous paragraph would undoubtedly lead to a massive improvement. I am
convinced that this would make individuals and society significantly happier.
Garbage
The amount of rubbish in our world is increasing at a rapid rate. Why is this happening?
What can be done to reduce it?

We live in a ‘throw-away society’. The appalling sight of enormous piles of garbage is a

direct consequence of our behaviour. We must develop a detailed understanding of why
this disgraceful situation has arisen, in order to be able to suggest effective strategies to
tackle it.
The first reason for there being so much garbage relates to lifestyle. Ours is a globalized,
materialistic world. We purchase unnecessarily large quantities of household goods,
electronic gadgets, food, clothing and footwear. A significant percentage of these
products arrive covered by plastic or cardboard. Little of this is recycled, with the majority
being thrown in bins, from where it is eventually taken to landfill sites and burnt or
buried. Governments could pass legislation forcing manufacturers to reduce packaging.
Likewise, raising taxes on luxury items might incentivize consumers to limit their demand.
The second major cause is the public’s attitude. Through a combination of laziness,
selfishness and a lack of awareness, ordinary individuals are culpable. If the general public
were better educated, it could pressurize businesses into re-thinking their wasteful
procedures. Similarly, if individuals cared more, they might cut down rubbish by recycling.
The final key element is globalization itself. Previous generations bought locally-produced
food and consumer durables. Nowadays, almost everything, from tulips to chewing-gum,
is transported to market. Items shipped thousands of kilometres need to be wrapped
securely and this wrapping accounts for a significant proportion of our rubbish. Obviously,
the process of globalisation is unlikely to be reversed. Nevertheless, environmentalists
support the introduction of trade tariffs and import duties to encourage us to buy things
produced in our own regions.
The mountains of waste must not be permitted to continue rising. Every single one of us
has the power to act. The state of the world which our grandchildren inherit is entirely our
responsibility.
Tourism
Tourism has led to many beautiful or historically significant places being damaged almost
beyond repair. What should be done to make sure that this does not happen in the
future?

International tourism is often described as a double-edged sword. Despite the fact that it
brings in significant revenue, often for under-developed and economically-deprived
regions, it can also lead to wonderful areas of natural beauty being spoilt, and stunning
monuments and buildings being destroyed. Clearly, we have a duty to protect our heritage
and steps must be taken to ensure that the planet’s most glorious locations are not lost
forever.
Probably the easiest solution would be to drastically cut the number of sight-seers and
holiday-makers. This could be done through careful monitoring and policing or by
imposing admission charges or raising the entry fees which already exist. This certainly
would be unpopular with visitors and may cause a drop in the level of tourism, which
would affect the revenue and profits of local businesses and entrepreneurs. However, the
financial sacrifice might be worthwhile if areas of outstanding beauty were saved.
Another potentially successful strategy could involve awareness-raising. Local authorities
and those in charge of the tourist sector might distribute leaflets to the hordes of foreign
visitors who arrive at world-famous tourist spots such as The Great Barrier Reef, The
Pyramids or Everest Base-Camp. Those visiting could be educated about the importance of
being careful and of not dropping litter or walking in restricted areas.
An equally sensible approach would be to ask international specialists for help in repairing
or restoring sites which have suffered through excessive tourism. Expert scientists from
top laboratories could be given the job of returning natural and historic locations to their
former glory. This might be funded by The United Nations or UNESCO and would hopefully
discourage further destruction.
Undeniably, some of the globe’s most awe-inspiring areas are in peril. Nonetheless, the
authorities and voluntary bodies have a range of possible responses. We should not lose
hope. Given political will and financial support, the damage done to the planet’s beauty
spots can be undone.
Computer games
Today children spend a lot of time playing computer games and less time on sports. Why
is this? Is it a positive or a negative development?

The recreational activities which youngsters are engaged in these days bear little
resemblance to those which previous generations loved. Instead of running around in the
playground, schoolchildren today are far more likely to be found staring into a
smartphone screen. The reasons for this shift in behaviour and the question of whether it
should concern us both merit discussion.
The move away from physical activity and towards electronic gaming has been driven by
various factors. Firstly, technological advances have undoubtedly made computer games
more realistic. Moreover, the fact that it is possible to play online with others adds an
attractive social element. It should also be noted that electronic gadgets are pervasive,
meaning that children regard their use as natural. Finally, in many cases, parents prefer
their offspring to be secure at home rather than being outdoors, potentially in danger.
Whether this behaviour is beneficial or not is debatable. In addition to the
aforementioned benefits, it is argued that children develop their creativity through these
activities. They can inhabit imaginary worlds, experiment and take risks without having to
deal with the consequences. However, experts insist that excessive gaming leads to
addiction, isolation, the inability to cope with reality, and mental or emotional illnesses
including depression and schizophrenia. It is not uncommon to read reports of under-
eighteens locked in their bedrooms almost permanently, unwilling to eat properly
because of their gaming obsession. Lastly, we should not lose sight of the fact that so-
called traditional sports promote fitness whilst playing online is detrimental to physical
health.
Electronic gaming has become increasingly widespread and has probably outstripped
traditional sporting pastimes in terms of popularity. Nothing can be done to reverse this
trend. Whilst gaming is enjoyable and beneficial in some respects, I would urge parents
and guardians to ensure that youngsters also spend time competing in actual physical
sports such as athletics and rugby.
Smartphones
The first smartphone was invented in 1992. By the year 2023 there may be as many as 2.5
billion smartphones in the world. The use of smartphones is decreasing our intelligence
because we are reliant on the technology and not our own minds. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?

Nobody could deny that smartphones have revolutionized our lives, enabling us to access
information and interact socially in a way which our grandparents’ generation would have
considered unthinkable. The question of whether these devices have actually made us
smarter or diminished our thinking skills is certainly worthy of debate. On balance, I
would argue that their influence has been malign.
Technophiles point to the fact that smartphones can offer us opportunities to be cleverer.
They allow unprecedented access to a vast array of data from which we can learn, as well
as giving us the chance to engage with individuals whose wisdom and thought-provoking
ideas can stimulate us. Furthermore, users can take advantage of brain-training apps and
programs which let them discover even the most obscure information by merely tapping a
screen.
However, I would contend that it is precisely this ease of access which should concern us.
We no longer need to be able to do mental arithmetic, recall the name of the discoverer
of penicillin or even remember our cousin’s birthday. Our brains are effectively becoming
redundant and humans are rapidly losing basic cognitive functions and memory skills. This
becomes obvious whenever you spot a person who has forgotten their electronic gadget
and is incapable of calculating the shopping bill or planning and carrying out routine and
basic tasks. We should all be alarmed that, as a species, we struggle to store, retain and
retrieve valuable information without the aid of a piece of technology.
It would be ridiculous to argue that the influence of smartphones has been entirely
negative. Yet, to some extent, it is fair to describe them as insidious. I accept that
smartphone technology is here to stay, but would urge manufacturers to re-design their
products so that they complement intelligent thought rather than replacing it.
Only children
‘Children who have brothers and sisters often have better social development than an
only child. The government should therefore give money to parents to have two or more
children.’ What do you think about this proposal?

In the past, due to high levels of infant mortality and the unavailability of birth control
methods, families tended to be extensive. Recently, there has been a marked reduction in
the number of babies born. The percentage of children who are growing up without
siblings is definitely on the rise and leading experts have suggested that this trend could
be damaging. However, I find the proposal to offer a financial incentive for parents to
have extra children quite frankly appalling and abhorrent.
The first point worth making is that even if it could be proved that those who grow up
surrounded by siblings are more mature and better adapted to society, it does not
naturally follow that society would be healthier if everyone had this background. Variety
is necessary in order for a culture to be harmonious and successful. Even though those
from large families might have better communication skills, only children possess other
abilities like determination, independence or higher levels of concentration. It is precisely
the interaction of individuals with different strengths, weaknesses and character traits
which makes society stronger.
In addition, it could be argued that this policy would have several unfortunate
consequences. Parents who only wanted one child might be attracted by the possibility of
receiving a payment for a second one, resulting in unwanted and unloved babies being
born. Furthermore, revenue wasted on this strategy could not be used to fight poverty or
build infrastructure. Finally, childless couples may resent public funds being used to
incentivise others to produce more babies.
In conclusion, I see absolutely no benefits to paying parents to increase the size of their
family. I would be upset if any government attempted to implement this approach. It
would suggest to me that the political leaders concerned did not have a fundamental
grasp of how the world works.