Đoán và giải đề writing IELTS

ĐOÁN ĐỀ IELTS WRITING
QUÝ I – 2018
Các bạn hãy kết hợp ôn tập như một nguồn bài luyện thi để
đạt được kết quả tốt nhất nha!


CONTENTS
OPINION........................................................................................................................... 3
DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................38
PROBLEM & SOLUTIONS............................................................................................57
TWO-PART QUESTION.................................................................................................61
ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES

2


OPINION
1. Nowadays a large amount of advertising aiming at children should be banned
because of the negative effects. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Currently, many companies tend to choose children as their target market to advertise
their products. While some advertisers argue that these advertisements are informative, I
personally believe that this marketing strategy negatively affects youngsters and their
parents.
On the one hand, there are some reasons to believe that advertisements aimed at children
contain useful information. Firstly, thanks to commercials, parents may be aware of the
products that are useful for their children. For example, some nutritious brands of milk
are widely advertised on TV, which parents can consider buying for their children if they
are confused by the wide variety of brands available in the market. Secondly, since
advertisements often have creative contents in order to get people’s attention, children
can be interested in this marketing industry if they are exposed to advertisements
regularly. As a result, they may work as an innovative advertiser when they grow up.

On the other hand, I believe that choosing children as the target market to introduce
products is harmful to both these individuals and their parents. As the young are
inexperienced, they may fully believe that the information in advertisements is true. If
they are attracted by these exaggerated commercials, they will be likely to insist their
parents to buy them products which are unnecessary and sometimes even unhealthy. For
instance, we can easily find advertisements of different brands of instant noodles and soft
drinks either on TV or on the internet, and these consumer goods are often known as
unhealthy. If they are advertised in an attractive way, youngsters will put pressure on their
parents to buy these things.
In conclusion, while some people believe that advertisements aimed at children are
useful, I would argue that this method of advertising has adverse effects on both
inexperienced youngsters and their parents.
Source: />
3


2. Some people think that university should not provide theoretical knowledge, but
to give practical training that is beneficial to society. Do you agree or disagree?
It is generally accepted that universities are the very places where students can obtain
profound knowledge of the fields they are following, and that both theoretical knowledge
and practical experience are essential for their future career. However, there is some
controversy among people about whether or not universities should place less emphasis
on theoretical knowledge and more on practical training throughout their courses .In fact,
this issue is in itself a very complex one, and therefore should be taken into consideration
carefully.
To begin with, nobody can argue that the acquisition of theoretical knowledge is very
crucial, since this is the basis of practical training. In other words, students must have a
good grasp of a subject before practising it in reality. Without basic knowledge, students
may become unfamiliar with the subject, so they may run into difficulty when undergoing
practical training. In addition, not all subjects can be taught by practical experiences, such

as History or Mathematics.
However, it should be borne in mind that empirical research also plays a vital role in
students' success at universities, as the ultimate aim of studying is to serve people's lives
more and more efficiently. By way of illustration, job market always has a tendency to
seek for people having more practical experience than those who only excel at theoretical
knowledge. Besides, practical training is a very effective way to get useful experience
that sometimes cannot be learnt from books. For example, students majoring in medicine
must attend some practical training so that they can know more clearly about the real
human body, thus leading to a slighter chance of making mistakes when they have to
implement genuine operations in the future.
Taking everything into account, I strongly believe that both theoretical and empirical
knowledge can bring about many great benefits. Therefore, it is important that
universities should provide a well-balanced education attaching equal importance to both
theory and practical training.
Source: />
4


3. In many countries, women are able to join the armed forces now on the equal
basis of men. However, some people think only men should be members of the army,
navy and air force. Do you agree or disagree?
Since the dawn of the time, women have been playing a crucial role in the civilisation
and development of mankind. It is clear that women can play a vital role in various
defence forces so the writer of this statement thinks that they are a blessing for their
country.
To commence with, women will be a boon to the force. To be clear, the world has
realised that women are equally capable as men in both mentally and physically abilities.
As women are blessed with intellectual and cognitive skills, they can use these invaluable
skills in the force. In addition to this, as we know, women are already serving in the
various other physically demanding job sectors such as white collar and blue collar

worker. It is unwise to select them in this job sector. More importantly, women are
naturally less aggressive and peace makers and these qualities are blessing for the force
and once they come to leadership these helps to reduce conflict among the nations.
Further, women are already part of the police department and they have proved that they
are capable of doing adventures and riskier jobs. To cite an example, women leaders such
as Queen Isabella, Victoria and the like ruled vast spectrum of power.
On the other hand, women have some physiological barriers in joining the defence force.
To make it clear, since women have to give birth to the child and nurture them, they need
maternity leave for that. If women are in the force, it would be impossible for them to get
leave at the time of war. Apart from that, many retrogressive people argue that women's
primary function is to prepare food and look after children and husband so they should
not opt to go for a job.
To conclude, in this advanced era, women have been working in every realm and they
have proved that they can contribute a lot to the society so they should take in defence
force.
Source: />
5


4. In many counties, more and more women have full-time jobs as men. There is a
logic that they should share the housework equally with men. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?
People have different views about whether or not men and women should have equal
responsibilities for household chores. From my point of view, I believe that household
work should be allocated equally for both husbands and wives.
There are many reasons why husbands and wives should share domestic
responsibilities.Traditional gender roles are gradually changing; women need to go to
work instead of staying at home to bring up their children in the past. For example,
besides the workload they have to take in the office, women are also responsibilities for
the housework. Thus, the burden put on their shoulder is even more than before. When

the working women are forced to do all the housework without any help, it has a very
negative effect on their mental and physical well-being.
When couples share the responsibilities of domestic life, they set a good example for
their children. Children raise in such families will learn the value of empathy and they
will share the responsibilities with their respective partners when they grow up. Besides,
sharing the chores will make the couples closer in their relationship, resulting in
improving the quality of their marital life. For instance, after dinner, husbands can do
clean floor while wives can do washing dishes.
In conclusion, I think that working couples should be encouraged to share the
responsibilities of their daily life. It is one of the important things to keep happy in their
family.
Source: />
6


5. Nowadays leisure industry products and modern gadgets are widely used by
young people. The use of these products reduces the young generations creativity.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
The popularity of exciting products and advanced devices has skyrocketed among
adolescents in the last decade. Majority of people believe that using these gizmos can
decrease the level of youth’s innovation. Others think juveniles who utilize these
productions have a more creative mind than other teenagers. From my perspective, I have
bipolar attitudes towards this viewpoint.
On the one hand, excessively using new technologies such as smartphones and video
games can waste people’s free time instead of consuming their time to innovate and
create new products. Statistics show that 80 percent of teenagers spend at least 25 hours
each week on using their cellphone, watching TV or playing games. This adolescents live
in a fictitious world of their own and often have trouble building relationships with
others. They can’t imagine an existence without their gadgets and get panic attacks if they
don’t have access to their machines. In other words, these people will find it difficult to

survive if they would be in a world where there is no internet or smartphone.
On the other hand, new gadgets and modern tools are leverages to enhance the young not
only to experience an unreal world without any limitation and boundary but also to
unleash their creativity. These devices can provide vital supporting tools for the creative
process. For instance, designing and editing software such as Photoshop allow their users
to push the boundaries and create original, artistic photos. Moreover, they inspire
adolescents to devise more innovative inventions. According to Sina Naderi researcher at
the University of Cambridge, playing particular games can improve imaginations of
mind.
In conclusion, recent tools can have positive and negative impacts on youngsters’
creativeness. I strongly agree with the notion that these affects are depended on both how
much time the young spend on these devices and why youthful people use these gizmos.
Source: />
7


6. Scientists believe computers will become more intelligent than human beings.
Some people think the development will have a positive impact. To what extent do
you agree or disagree？
In today’s world, the technology has improved significantly. Many technological devices
have been invented in order to help humans in a work place and home. One of a prevalent
is the invention of computers. Some people think that with the innovative computer,
human lives have better improvements much more than before. I believe with this
viewpoint even though there are some drawbacks arising from the over-reliance on
computers.
On the one hand, the computers have many merits to human lives for a number of
reasons. Firstly, innovative computers can help human lives to become very simpler and
convenient. Many complicated work can be done effectively and quickly by computer
programs. Analyzing advanced data and organizing complicated information can be taken
by these tools. Secondly, all human errors from work can be eliminated by using

computers. Computers can do work much more accurate and productive than people.
Advanced software these days can solve human mistakes within a very short time. Lastly,
these high-tech machines can save a lot of time for people. Workers can do work in a
better way which is much faster than doing it manually. Without the improvement of
computers, it could be very difficult to deal with all advanced data and complicated work.
On the other hand, there are many drawbacks of using smart computers. First and
foremost, if people use computers to do all their work such as calculating, integrating and
translating, it will have negative effects on human capabilities. With overuse computers,
people will be unable to do complicated skills anymore. Moreover, nowadays people tend
to be more dependent on technological devices. Using the analyzing gadgets such
computers excessively, it can cause to unable to do some skills. Consequently, intelligent
computers will become more independent and control humans instead in the future.
In conclusion, in my opinion, I do believe that computers do a great service to societies
and mankind. The advantages of innovative computers are very abundant. Without the
development of smart computers, it will be very hard for humans to go back to do all
work manually.
Source: />
8


7. Some people think that instead of preventing the climate change we should find
ways to live with it. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
In today's world, the use of computers is ever increasing.It is one of the most important
things in human life. It became a common part of modern society. Scientists think that it
will become smarter than human. Some people discover that it is a positive trend, but
others have a negative attitude towards this dependency on computers. This essay will
discuss the benefits and drawbacks of such a measure.
One of the main beneficial developments of computers is that it made life easier and
more convenient for everybody. For example, it is comfortable to sit at home and do
research on the internet with your computer. Your computer is open 24 hours a day,

unlike a library or office. In addition, computer technology can connect workers in
different countries. Workers can communicate via email, online networks, and video
conferencing. It gives people to save their time and money. Computers have automated
the offices, education, banking, even the advancement of treatment and crime detection
were possible due to the powerful computer technology. These examples make it clear
that it is a positive increase in human life.
On the other hand, this development has its disadvantages. It can lead to the loss of the
balance in society. For instance, offices will be disappearing in the future and virtual
online offices may replace them. Therefore, people will become very lazy which is
crucial to the way in which human develop without socialisation skills. They move
toward the creation of higher unemployment. That's way there will appear two groups:
humans and computer technologies.
To conclude, it is the beneficial development for human life, however, it impacts badly as
well. I strongly believe that there are many advantages in the way of development and we
should take advantages of it. We have made the computers and as human, we will control
them.
Source: />
9


8. Aircraft uses more fuel than cars and produces more pollution. Some people
suggest the non-essential use of aircraft like international travel should be
discouraged. Do you agree or disagree?
Although some people argue that discouraging the use of international aircraft will reduce
the negative effects on environment. I disagree that the use of aircraft to travel long
distances will influence more to nature and use more fuel than other vehicles.
It is widely accepted that the aircrafts are more effective in transporting in terms of time
and capability. First, this mean needs less time to reach the destination for the passengers.
Airplanes can transport people as well as goods at high speed, so less time is needed,
especially for destinations that are far. Besides, an airplane can carry up to hundreds of

people and produces at the same time. As a result, its efficiency is more significant than
the other types of transportation including cars and motorbikes.
Moreover, air transport is a profitable industry, which can boost the development of the
country. Due to its convenience, more and more people choose this mean to travel.
Therefore, airlines can generate greater revenue from running this industry. For example,
the national airlines of Vietnam has grown significantly in recent years with greater profit
earned. As a result, the government can get more money for the state budget from tax
paid by the airlines. This amount of money is essential to improve the quality of various
public services that are closely related to the life of people.
In conclusion, it is unjustifiable to say that the use of air transportation should be limited.
Instead, I believe that this way of travelling brings more benefits than harms.
Source:
pollution/

/>
10


9. In modern life, it is no longer necessary to use animals as food and in other
products like clothing and medicines. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Recently, the vast developments have made more options available for people to produce
food, make clothes and develop new medicines. Thus, it has been suggested that living
without exploiting animals for these purposes can be realized in the modern world.
However, although I fully agree with this statement, it seems that there is still a long way
to
go
before
humans
stop
exploiting

animals.
It is true that advances in technology give humans potentials to create whatever essential
to them through synthesis. For instance, food proteins and cloth fabrics can be produced
and made through artificially combining and orientating basic chemical elements. Even
most medicines can be developed in the same way. As a result, human beings rely less on
animals for food and clothing than they did in the past and more importantly, many
diseases such as small pox and malaria which were once fatal to health are eliminated by
synthesized vaccines, not antibodies extracted from animals. As seen above, it is clear
that human would have no problems to survive or even thrive without exploiting animals.
However, despite that humans possess almost every technology allowing them to stop
using animals, the long history of mankind dominating animals makes it hard for humans
to let them go. Since the advent of human civilization, animals have been recognized as
sources of food and cloth, hard labors and most recently, experimental subjects in
medical research. With such a long history, humans have developed a deep-rooted
thought that animals are meant to be taken advantage of and thus most of us take
exploiting animals for granted. Although there has been a raise in the public awareness
that as creatures in nature, animals share the same right as humans, it is unfortunate that
using animals for food, clothing and medicine is still prevalent in the modern world.
Because of this, more efforts and time are still needed to change the people’s view
towards
animals.
In conclusion, technological advancements have given us abilities to stop exploiting
animals for food, clothing and medicine. However, the deep-rooted thought that animals
would never share the same right as humans would likely require a long time to be
changed. Before that, animals are still likely to be exploited by human beings.
Source: />
11


10. Some people say that there is no need to provide international aid by

governments because they already suffer from unemployment and homeless
problems in their own country. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is a big concern for many people that it is not a compulsory responsibility of their
government to provide international aid to other countries owing to the fact that they have
some obstacles in their home country. In my opinion, I would like to stay in middle
ground of this debate.
Firstly, one important aspect of a government is to invest money in their own country
instead of giving wealth to other countries. In fact, it is true that when the unemployment
rate is high in a country and people of this country need better economic structure, they
would not support that their governments supply aid and money to other poor countries.
Naturally, they would expect their own problems to be sorted out first. For instance, if
any government invests money for the constructions of many new organisations like
factories and health departments in their homeland, there will be more chances of
development of country and high opportunities to control on unemployment.
Another important thing for any country’s government is to provide homes and some
other facilities to homeless people rather than lending money to other countries because
in this way the economy would be better than before in that country. If any government
has extra money firstly they should focus on compulsory needs of their own country after
that it can be provided as the international aid to other countries.
However, we live in a single globe and when people in some parts of the world are
starving, many others have opulent resources. Sharing among nations can ensure a better
world. The economic structure of the present world would never allow a country to
ensure 100% employment and houses for people to live in. there will always be homeless
people and jobless youth even in developed countries. So considering these, a rich nation
should always help the poor nations in need. Don’t we help people with our resources and
money when we still have a scarcity of these? Similarly, a comparatively rich country
should always raise the helping hand to the poor nations. The sharing of wealth will
eliminate more pressing problems in poor nations and thus in return they would also help
in other ways. For example, rich countries like the USA invest in research facilities in
many Asian countries and in return they can have meritorious scientists living and

working for them and better business understanding.

12


In conclusion, the government of a country should first fulfil the necessity of its own
citizens. To a certain extent, they should share their extra wealth to poor countries as the
international aid that can be helpful for both of the countries.
Source: />11. University students always focus on one specialist subject, but some people think
universities should encourage their students to study a range of subjects in addition
to their own subject. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Whether it is necessary for college students to study a number of subjects or one subject
only is a controversial issue. I believe that one should consider his/her personal interests
and employers’ requirements when deciding the number of subjects to learn.
It is true that acquiring a wider range of skills and knowledge is beneficial to students
aiming at fields of professions related to interpersonal communication. These types of
jobs emphasise the ability to communicate with other people effectively either to sell
products or to manage human resources. For example, if a marketing student is familiar
with psychology and various subjects that may interest target customers, it will give
him/her a significant competitive edge when selling products.
On the other hand, for subjects that require learners’ commitment for many years,
students need to focus on one area of specialism. Only in this way, they can concentrate
their efforts on a specific area and seek to become professionals. This types of
professions are normally related to science, which are nowadays increasingly in need of
qualified personnel. If there are job vacancies for researchers of biochemistry, whether
job applicants studied accounting is not a matter of importance.
Students aiming at other common careers should acquire a certain range of knowledge
while still giving importance to their majors. For majority of college students, it is
beneficial to be a little of both specialist and generalist. That means, instead of doing
everything mediocre or just providing employers service in one particular field, one

should possess acceptable depth of experience in one area and also some knowledge
about related subjects. This makes them more competitive.
In conclusion, I believe students can decide on the number of subjects with their own
career interests and personal needs taken into account.
Source: />
13


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

/>
14


13. Nuclear energy is a better choice for meeting increasing demand. Do you agree
or disagree?
As a result of the environment problems which is resulted from the traditional
dependence on fossil fuels, some countries have invested an alternative energy sources.
Although there are some dangers in this new approach, I personally agree that its benefits
outweigh the drawbacks.
On the one hand, there are certainly some negative consequences of increasing reliance
on alternative energy sources. The chief among this is that the safety of nuclear power is
a considerable question. Because of lacking technological development, too much
uncertainty exists in unclear area. The incidents happens in Fukushima in Japan reminds
the public of the dangers of nuclear plants. The poisonous and radioactive emissions
produced by the explosion not only killed many people, but also left a legacy of cancer
death in the future. Another energy source, wind power, is criticized for different reasons.
For example, many local communities oppose the installation of wind farms because they
may affect the landscape and create too much noise from its generators.
On the other hand, there are several benefits to building more nuclear stations. Firstly,
nuclear power is relatively sustainable energy source, meaning that it can be used to
produce electricity without wasting limited natural resources likes coal or gas. Secondly,
green power station are eco-friendly and do not contribute to air pollution, which is the
biggest concern of nations worldwide. As there is no carbon emission, problem of climate
change and poor air quality can be tackled by increasing use of alternative sources.
Consequently, many countries are now considering nuclear power as a solution to high oil
or gas, increasing demand of electricity, and worries about pollution and climate change.
In conclusion, despite of many risks can happen by using this alternative sources, I firmly
believe that its advantages overcome the shortcomings as some reasons mentioned above.
Source:

/>
15


14. Countries with a long average working time are more economically successful
than those countries which do not have a long working time. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?
In some countries, the average working hours are relatively longer than those in other
countries. This practice is obviously based on the assumption that the harder work, the
more prosperous economy. However, I doubt it truly.
The holders of this view may think that investing more time in work contributes
to more production, hence helping create more wealth. It is true that there is a
direct link between how long a worker works and the outcome. For example, 10 hours
of manufacture in a factory can achieve double production of 5 hours. However, it is not
production but productivity that is responsible for economic success. In developing
countries like China or India, the respective GDP cannot be said low in the world, but the
average figure is relatively lower than developed countries such as USA and UK.
Prolonging working
time
actually imposes some incidental negative effects
on a
country’s
economy.
The
first
one
is
the potential growing health
care cost because fatigue tends to harm the employees’ health, therefore leading to
more consumption of medical resources. In addition to economic loss, the workers’

decreasing satisfaction to their workplace due to being coerced to extend their working
time is another consideration if we believe that workers’ emotional wellbeing can affect
their productivity. Absenteeism and sick leave are reported by many employers to be the
two most counterproductive factors.
In
conclusion,
I
personally
cannot
agree
with
the
view
given and my evidence is that economic
long-term
prosperity is not determined
by production, and therefore lengthening working
hours
does
not necessarily
sustainably boost economy. The additional supporting ideas include possible building
up medical expense and diminishing contentment to work.
Source: />
16


15. Many people believe that countries should produce food for all population eats
and import food as little as possible. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is sometimes argued that providing all kinds of food for citizens and reducing
importing food as much as possible are the countries’ responsibility. However, I totally

disagree with this idea, and I believe that this is a significant deterrent to countries’
development.
On the one hand, it is simply impossible for a nation to produce all food for their citizens.
Obviously, there are a variety of plants that just grow up on some particular areas. For
example, wet rice is just planted in Asian countries or Brazil where there are many rivers,
lakes that can supply water resources for its growth, and of course it would find it
difficult to adapt severe climate in Africa in which even people are dying every year due
to a scarcity of freshwater. Therefore, this is the best demonstration for governments to
import necessary foods to meet their citizens’ demands.
In addition, there are several reasons for authorities to decide to import food. Firstly,
importing food is considered as the most effective way to diversify the number of goods
on the countries’ domestic markets. This will lead to various choices for consumers, and
certainly encourages a well-being life for people. Secondly, many foreign products mean
that domestic markets will be really competitive that will force local manufacturers to
improve their production practices to compete with others. As the result, customers will
benefits from numerous high-quality goods on the markets.
In conclusion, producing all food for its citizens is an impossible duty for a country’s
agriculture industry. In my opinion, importing food should be encouraged because of
many significant benefits it brings to countries’ citizens.
Source: />
17


16. Some people believe that in order to give opportunities to new generation
companies should encourage high level employees who are older than 55 to retire.
Do you agree or disagree? Why?
Whether senior employees who are over 55 years old should be encouraged to take a
retirement or not has aroused a contentious issue among concerning people. Despite the
argument of some advocators that senior workers should be retired, it is my personal
perspective that they are by no means inessential. The reasons for it are twofold.

Initially, senior employees, with their working experience, are necessary to strengthen the
thriving development of companies. Indeed, on the ground of undergoing many years
commitment in career, people cultivate and deepen their understanding about the specific
field such as market segment, marketing strategies and competitions of the organisations
they work for. Meanwhile, the young who may perform innovatively and dynamic
working style, however, are seen deficiencies of true experience and need to seek for
judicious advice from the elder. In other words, lacking such experienced people may put
companies in jeopardies. Let‘s take Samsung electronic corporation as a typical example,
no sooner did the company dismiss their contract with senior generations to replace by
younger ones than they witness a considerable deterioration in their competitiveness.
Further and even more significantly, a soon retirement causes several social problems.
Firstly, the sooner citizens take retirement, the bigger tax burden to existing worker.
Irrefutably, when inhabitants are no longer working, they demand social welfare to
survive, resulting in more major expenditure from government’s spending. Additionally,
these days, thanks to the development of sciences and technologies, senior people could
reduce pressure by applying modern methodologies to work. Besides, with better
nutrition, employees at age of 55 are strong enough to be in charge of their positions.
By the way of conclusion, I once again reaffirm my opinion that organisations should
continue hiring senior employees since it takes both companies’ stabilisation and social
concern into consideration. Only by co-operating between the experience of the old with
the creativity of the young, do organisation and society keep stable development.
Source: />
18


17. Some people think that strong tradition can civilize a country and the
government should subsidize musicians, artists, actors and drama companies. Do
you agree or disagree with the opinion?
People have different views about the funding of creative artists. While some people
disagree with the idea of government support for artists, I believe that money for art

projects should come from both governments and other sources.
Some art projects definitely require help from the state. In the UK, there are many works
of art in public spaces, such as streets or squares in city centres. In Liverpool, for
example, there are several new statues and sculptures in the docks area of the city, which
has been redeveloped recently. These artworks represent culture, heritage and history.
They serve to educate people about the city, and act as landmarks or talking points for
visitors and tourists. Governments and local councils should pay creative artists to
produce this kind of art, because without their funding our cities would be much less
interesting and attractive.
On the other hand, I can understand the arguments against government funding for art.
The main reason for this view is that governments have more important concerns. For
example, state budgets need to be spent on education, healthcare, infrastructure and
security, among other areas. These public services are vital for a country to function
properly, whereas the work of creative artists, even in public places, is a luxury. Another
reason for this opinion is that artists do a job like any other professional, and they should
therefore earn their own money by selling their work.
In conclusion, there are good reasons why artists should rely on alternative sources of
financial support, but in my opinion government help is sometimes necessary.
Source:
/>
19


18. The professional workers such as doctors, nurses and teachers should be paid
more than the sports and entertainment personalities. Do you agree or disagree?
The great Mahatma Gandhi says," No job is smaller in this world". However, In the real
life, the income and wages are considered as one of the factors that categorized numerous
professions practiced in the society. Many intellectuals believe that the professional
profiles like doctors and teachers should be paid higher than the celebrities, who belong
to the entertainment industry. My inclination discord with the statement supporting the

belief of justified remuneration based on the complexity of work and nature of income
involved with the industry.
Universally, professional jobs are considered to be highly secured jobs in the market, and
which is why most of the parents guide their kids to adopt those professions for their
bright future. To illustrate, doctors and teachers get regular income during their working
tenure as well as in their retirement period in a form of pension whereas celebrities don't
get any such social securities.Moreover, the salaries those are drawn by professionals
remain steadily increasing in nature. There would be hardly any fall of income registered
for these type of profession. For instance, Even in the time of inflation, people never stop
to hire services of teachers and doctors. Whilst people will hold control in their
recreational activities which in turn affect the income of people associated with the
entertainment industry.
On the other hand, the income of athletes and actors solely depends on their performance
and consistency. So, their source of income always remains fluctuating rather constant,
unlike other sophisticated professions. For example, Mike Tyson was the great boxing
world champion but his one defeat dug his grave and alienated him. Lastly, The public
expectations to these performers always keep them on their toe to deliver a pure form of
innovation in their show ever. Hence, to gain it they put lots of efforts in fine-tuning of
their skills. To exemplify, Priyanka Chopra, a great leading Bollywood actress, who has
performed a role of Mary Kom in her biopic, has taken an extensive physical training to
look alike a boxer.

20


To conclude, every profession has its own important role to play in the society. However,
the complexity of the tasks and uncertainty of income should be considered before going
judgemental about the compensation of any profession.
Source: />
19. In many countries traditional foods are being replaced by international fast

food.This is a negative effect on both families and societies. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?
Foreign fast food has become a prevalent product among consumers in numerous places
around the world. Opinions diverge greatly on the negativity of this type of food and I
believe its favorable impacts, which would be analyzed below, are eclipsed by the
harmful ones
On the one hand, hast food plays a significant role in aiding modern while collar and blue
collar workers to keep pace with the hustle and bustle which traditional food fails to do,
in comparison with the huge amount of time and effort, sometimes elaborateness to
prepare Vietnamese dishes, occupied individuals can stop by any fast food stands such as
Mc Donald on the street and enjoy a delicious meal within a few minutes. On the societal
level, due to the rapid expansion of fast food producers, Pizza Express for example,
retailers come into operation at an unprecedented rate, which creates thousands of job
opportunities for the locals. This eventually makes most use of the idle workforce,
helping to diminish the national unemployment rate
On the other hand, I am inclined to the thought that the adverse effects of fast food are
rather worrying. Initially, the consumption of such meals is disadvantageous too human
health in the long run. Unfortunately, the shortcomings of eating pizza and hamburgers on
a regular basis might be obesity or diabetes due to the high dosage of sugar and fat these
products contain. besides, the rise in the use of fast food might result in over- dependence
which causes cooking skills' deterioration. Especially in the scenario of Asian countries,
Vietnam, for example, society often values the roles of women in their kitchen skills.
Depending too much on ready-made dishes might be a detriment to this special set of
skills
In conclusion, although it is impossible to set aside the positive aspects of overseas ready
meals, I still suppose that their pitfalls should be paid more attention to

21

Source: />
20. Some people think pollution and damage of environment are resulted from a
country developing and becoming richer, which this is hard to be avoided. To what
extent do you agree or disagree?
Environmental problems and pollutions are often considered to be the direct result of a
country’s development. Industrialization, growing number of factories, people’s
capability of purchasing more cars and electronic device etc. are often related to the
economic condition and growth of a nation. However, I do not agree that pollution and
other environmental problems are caused only because of the economic growth of a
country and that this cannot be avoided.
First, it does not take an expert to understand that pollution and environmental problems
are more prominent in poor countries than that of rich countries. Air, sound and water
pollutions in countries like India and Bangladesh are far dangerous than that of developed
countries like Australia, Canada and the UK. Furthermore, the number of factories does
not represent the amount of pollution it causes. For instance, recent researches have made
it clear that only a few garments factories in a country like Bangladesh cause far more
damage to the air and water resources than hundreds of bigger industries do in the United
States.
Second, economic development does not mean that a country will have industries and
factories all over the country. Proper planning and inspection from the government can
ensure the minimal emission of gas and other toxic elements into the water and air. So
even if the industrialization is imminent for the development of a country, it does not
mean that we will have no way to minimize the pollution and environmental issues. For
instance, industrialization does not cause as much deforestation as it is caused by human
greed and lack of inspection and law in many countries.
In conclusion, I would agree that development and industrialization affect the
environment negatively to some extent but this is not the prime factor in polluting our

22

environment. We still have time and lot of options to reduce the pollution and
environmental problems to make the world a better place for the future generation.
Source: />
21. Although it is a freedom to use tobacco while some people think it should be
made illegal as the same way as other drugs. To what extent do you agree or
disagree？ What’s your opinion?
Recent decades have witnessed an upsurge in the consumption of tobacco, raising many
questions of health hazards. However, I disagree with their illegalization of tobacco
despite some related health problems.
On the one hand, it is true that regular consumption of nicotine from cigarettes could
cause many health hazards. The nicotine substance and other addictive chemicals
released from tobacco could make users more sensitive to many serious diseases such as
diabetes and lung cancer, which is invariably associated with the decline in their life
expectancy. Moreover, the surrounding people of smokers, usually known as passive
smokers, also have to face with higher risks of such diseases than the smokers suffer.
On the other hand, the tobacco prohibition could culminate in some negative
consequences. First, tobacco is proved to be the main source of an excise tax, accounting
for the large proportion of total national revenue in both developed and developing
nations. In fact, the legislation of tobacco prohibition has contributed to a fall by 5% in
Singapore’s GDP, lessening capital investments in many public sectors. In addition, ban
on cigarettes actually is instrumental in the creation of drug cartels. This is implied that
the criminalization of tobacco would force users to use other alternative drugs such as
marijuana and heroin, which demands a higher degree of drug supply than ever and also
leads to more health problems than tobacco.
In conclusion, the prohibition of cigarettes should not be imposed due to some negative
consequences pertaining to decrease in national capital and increase in the consumption
of other drugs. However, users should be aware of many health problems and restrict the
consumption for the long-term benefits.
Source: />

23


22. Some people believe government should spend money on building train and
subway lines to reduce traffic congestion. Others think that building more and
wider roads is the better way to reduce traffic congestion. Discuss both views and
give your opinion.
Traffic congestion has become the bane of citizens in many parts of the world. In order to
mitigate this problem, some suggest that public transportation, such as trains and subway
lines should be constructed. Meanwhile, others are firm in their belief that building wider
roads makes more sense. Both of these methods will be analysed below.
On the one hand, building trains is an effective method to improve traffic condition.
There are compelling evidences to support the investment in public transportation. In
countries where subway systems are up to standard, the number of private vehicles that
participate in traffic is small, city dwellers can save hours of delay and also thousands of
dollars on traveling expenses. That is not to mention a significant number of gallons of
fuel saved, which means slowing down the exploitation of natural resources.
There are, however, others who express doubts on this approach. Their suggestion is that
a better way to alleviate traffic jam is to make bigger road systems. The undeniable fact is
that in many developing countries today, roads are narrow and in a desperate state of
disrepair, which greatly obstruct the travels to their destinations. Someone’s small
accidents, a flat tyre for example, can bring traffic to a halt, which is a commonly-seen
problem in roads that have only two lanes.
To conclude, both methods discussed above provide sustained relief on our roadways;
however, it is my opinion that the method to build trains and subway makes more sense
in terms of environmental protection.
Source:
/>
24

23. International community should ensure that all countries must immediately
reduce the use of fossil fuels (e.g. natural gas and petrol oil) in order to protect
natural environment. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Increasing consumptions of fossil fuels have resulted in the emission of the greenhouse
gas which is one of the causes of issues relating to environmental damage in recent years.
Therefore, some people suggest that all countries should take actions urgently to lessen
the usage of the harmful energy. From my personal view, I agree with the statement to
some extent.
It cannot be denied that fossil fuel is one of the major contributors to global warming and
climate change. Indeed, the burning of oil and coal produces tonnes of carbon dioxide per
year, and it is one of the greenhouse gases that enhance radioactive forcing and contribute
to global warming. The rise in temperature of the Earth has associated with numerous of
adverse effects such as melting of polar ice caps, flooding of low-lying areas and rise to
the sea level. Also, fossil fuels are generally considered to be non-renewable resources
because they take millions of years to form. If the utilisation of mineral fuels is not
reduced and controlled, it could be exhausted and people may soon run short of fossil
fuels while scientists have not found an alternative energy source. As a result, the price of
fossil fuels has also increased greatly which could lead countries to fall into a fuel war.
However, there might be some concerns about the reduction of mineral fuels utilisation.
One among of them is that the approach will lead to failure to maintain well-balanced
social order. In fact, manufacture industry, transportation and even home heating require
powers, which are generated through fossil fuels. Accordingly, detrimental consequences
might impact to the development of the entire the world if we cut down the use of fossil
fuel immediately. More than that, some alternative powers such as nuclear, solar and
wind power have not been applied widely due to reasons like climate condition, high cost
or safety requirement. It could take scientist many years developing these energies to be
perfect substitutes for fossil fuel.
In conclusion, in order to tackle environment problems and avoid the growing scarcity of
natural energy in the future, the reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels should be

considered and planned purposefully and gradually

25