Task 2 Essay Sample: Culture and Tradition

“The development of science and technology has been accompanied by a decline in traditional culture. Do you think that this has a negative impact on our life?” Use your own knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.

Technology has progressed very rapidly over the years. Modern technology has definitely made our life convenient with its amenities. Technology has had a profound effect on our lifestyle and culture. Modern technology has changed many things in our lives. Modern technology has changed our way of thinking about what to expect from life. Technology has a profound effect on our culture, values, beliefs and lifestyle. Modern technology has changed the way we think, move, live and enjoy.

Development of science and technology has been accompanied by a decline in traditional culture. In my opinion, this is not necessarily a negative change, because societies change over time and so do cultural practices. It’s the technology that helped the society to change fast and for the better in most cases. In the first place, science and technology have cleared up many phenomena that were mysterious to us in the past. As a result, large number of harmful superstitions have disappeared, and nobody regrets their passing. For instance, we now know that thunder and lightning are not caused by gods being angry, but are normal natural phenomena.

In the second place, our everyday lives have been made more convenient by scientific and technological inventions such as trains, airplanes and computers. Nowadays electric lights have replaced the traditional oil lamps, and computers enable us to make quicker and more accurate calculations. The television brings the family together in the evening.

 In third place, science and technology actually help to preserve the useful and pleasant parts of traditional culture. Technology has enabled us to invent many new techniques to preserve historical artifacts.

Therefore, for the above reasons, I welcome the development of science and technology. Advances in science and technology have brought us many benefits. At the same time, they have eliminated the bad parts of traditional culture while preserving the good parts.

Nowadays it is noticed that cultural mixing is reflected within local cultural practices. Do you think it is good for our society?

In this era of globalization, boundaries – political, geographical, cultural – are being removed as peoples blend and persons share, with each other, the very values that once segregated them. Cultural mixing has begun tearing down all the ethnical and racial pigeonholes and move us closer, by the day, towards one universal race of humans. Like all else, even this has its occasional downsides, which, when put in comparison with the upsides, are negligible.

Firstly, we have to consider that cultural mixing is perhaps the only non-coercive way to move global humanity towards ideal equality, a belief sought for by all the great persons, and political and religious ideologies. While many have struggled throughout human history to uproot tyranny, oppression, bigotry and segregation, their paths have been tainted by the blood of the bold and tears of the beautiful. True that we, through our ravaging revolutions, have progressed, but at a cost that undoubtedly has been dear. Cultural mixing, on the other hand, is the benedictory prophet, who ushers the great communion of all men in empathy, leaving behind all ethos, and he comes only in peace.

Yet, some conservatives argue that free-mixing of cultural values degrade people’s sense of morality. They must be conveniently forgetful of all the immoralities, in the name of conservation, that evidently have tarnished human history. Although, it is undeniable that cultural mixing, like any other progressive enterprise, has coincided with social unpleasantries, for example declining stability among families in the third world countries, the blame has not yet been rationally put. And, of course, there are many other socio-economic controllers such as wage-earning, and individualism that may very well be responsible for today’s social ills.

In sum, we must not be closed-minded to the global brethren cultures, because, only by doing this we may, one day, realize the ever-cherished dreamland of universal humanity, where “… all the people, sharing the world in peace” will not be only a thing of imagination.

Many museums and historical sites are mainly visited by tourist but not local people. Why is this case and what can be done to attract more local people to visit these places?

It is the fact that museums and historical attractions are essentially visited by tourists than local inhabitants. There could be a number of causes behind this phenomenon and several solutions should be adopted to draw more local residents’ attraction. There are two main reasons why museums and historical sites are not attractive to local people.

One of the most critical causes is habitual historical attractions. This is due to the fact that these places are infinitely familiar with local inhabitants because they have been lived here for a long time; thus, they have no longer interest. By contrast, tourists stay at these places for a short time in which they have never been before. Another factor that should not be ignored is historical items and events remain unchanged. As a result, local residents feel bored with the same activities; therefore, they do not come to visit these kinds of unattractive places.

A number of possible actions could be implemented in order to tackle the problems described above. A simple solution would be mentioned is that government should invest more in exhibits and items on display. For instance, more new items should be added to attract residents. Moreover, historical events should be organized draw the attention of the public. For example, historical ceremonies should be held annually to commemorate and illustrate historical events to attract more local inhabitants.

To conclude, nowadays, tourists prefer to visit museums and historical sites rather than local inhabitants. However, this issue could be tackled by various solution conducted by government and local authorities.

Governments should focus spending only on public services, not waste on the arts. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is widely argued that government budget should be allocated to activities or services that benefit the public, as opposed to wasting on art. While I agree that it is necessary to allocate national treasure to public services, I believe that funding art-related activities would also be beneficial in various ways.

On the one hand, it is undeniable that public services such as hospitals, schools, police offices play an integral part in people’s lives. If the government pays more attention to fund these establishments, every member/ citizens of the society will be benefited. For example, we all need to use the services provided by the police or hospital, therefore the investment in public bodies would create positive and long-lasting impacts on the lives of ordinary residents.

On the other hand, there are a variety of reasons for governments to spend their budgets on the arts. Firstly, it is proven that art produces various advantages for each individual. Art is considered to be a way to raise above everyday life, inspiring people to ponder about part and parcel of human conditions. Enjoying a piece of artwork could provoke serious thoughts and unique moments of reflection in a person. Aesthetic experience could provide sentimental values, which enrich people’s lives. Secondly, since economic enterprises and other non – government organizations often deal with various social problems, the government should take the lead to sponsor art-related programs and create a suitable environment for artists to thrive. By doing this, governmental agencies can create a healthy balance in the development of the society, as art is an indispensable part of a prosperous country.

In conclusion, I would argue that government spending on/ government’s expenditure on the arts is as essential as funding on public services.

Many museums charge for admission while others are free. Do you think the advantages of charging people for admission to museums outweigh the disadvantages? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Nowadays, in some museums, visitors have to pay money before entering the museum while others are free to visit. I certainly believe that the benefit of charging does not outweigh the drawback because heritage and art are more important than generating money. Therefore, the government should sponsor for the people in any event.

The main disadvantage is that the museum which charges an entrance fee will not attract visitors. Living in the 21st century with many cutting-edge technologies, people can easily get the information about the art or artifact on the Internet, even see it lively by gear VR, so going to the museum is redundant. For instance, if people want to see the Mona Lisa painting, they can use Samsung Gear VR and enjoy it at their home, which is convenient and saves money. Second, in many developing countries, people just have enough money for food and shelter, so if museums charge a fee, that will lead to the decline in the number of visitors. In Viet Nam, the average of museums price is 50 to 100 thousand VND which is equal to the wage of normal person work in 8 hours. Therefore, this would discourage people from going to the museums as they can use such an amount of money for other essential activities.

Despite this, there are some people thinking that museum is unsustainable without the money they get from ticket sales. They say that this money allows the museum to remain open and repair it for the next few years. To this, I would say that the government should jump in and cover the cost because it is important to encourage people to learn about the culture and have knowledge about the history of their homeland by offering free entrance to museums. For instance, in many European nations, the government encourage their student to go to the museum by giving them a free ticket on the weekend.

In conclusion, although some people think that places of culture should be run like a business, I think that the chance to learn about the art and culture is of much greater importance and it should be free to all people.

Some people say that the only reason for learning a foreign language is in order to travel or work in a foreign country. Others say that these are not the only reasons why someone should learn a foreign language. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.


 There has recently been a controversial belief that the only purpose of picking up a new language is due to travelling to or working in a foreign nation. Many strongly advocate for this idea for its practicality, whereas others argue that learning another language can be an advantage in some respects. From my perspective, I am in favor of the latter for a number of reasons.

On the one hand, it is an undeniable fact that visiting or working in a non-native place give people opportunities and incentives to take up a new language. Indeed, only by interacting with a foreign environment do travelers or employees feel the real need and obligation to learn what is required. Moreover, learning a new language is comparatively vague and involves numerous issues so specifying the purposes before learning helps human become more focused and study faster. For example, working as a waiter in an Italian restaurant requires basic knowledge of common Italian.

On the other hand, I would firmly argue that picking another language as a whole brings more benefits than just working and travelling. Firstly, as the world is currently in its phase of integration, knowing a different language provides chances of understanding and making overseas friends. In that way, we will be increasingly updated and civilized which will make a major contribution to country development. Secondly, scientists have long proved that learning many foreign languages can increase human’s smart level. This may be because when absorbing a language, our brain will have to work in a constructively and sensibly different way compared to their mother language.

All things considered, while travelling and working may usually seem the major reasons why people take up a new language, there is actually a lot of unexpected advantages to knowing a non-native language.


In recent years, people have more a tendency to learn a new language. While some people argue that they do that because they want to travel or work overseas, I believe that there are other reasons why they should study a foreign language.

On the one hand, there are undeniable advantages of learning a new language for the purpose of traveling or working in a foreign country. The biggest advantages are that when travellers go to a different country, they can communicate with local inhabitants because they know the language of that country. This will help them broaden their own knowledge. Additionally, because of globalization, knowing a foreign language will bring for them many job opportunities in a foreign nation. As a result, they will get a higher salary and learn more vital skills for their job.

On the other hand, I strongly agree with those who say that travel and work overseas are not the only reasons why someone should learn a foreign language. Firstly, education purpose is a considerable reason for learning a new language. For instance, more and more students in Vietnam learn English with a view of studying abroad in the US or Singapore in order to get a globally acceptable qualification. Secondly, learning a new language helps people meet entertainment needs such as watching a foreign film because they can listen to and understand what people in the film say without looking at subtitle.

For the reasons mentioned above, I believe that learning a foreign language is not only for the purpose of traveling or working in a foreign country but also for other important purposes.

It is inevitable that traditional cultures will be lost as technology develops. Technology and traditional cultures are incompatible. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?

People have different views about what the main factor for the loss of inherited cultures is. While some believe that the development of technology is the primary reason causing the disappearance of traditional cultures, I strongly argue against the opinion above/ the aforementioned opinion.

Technology can help to preserve traditional cultures rather than destroy them. In fact, with the revolution of technology, people can save uncountable historical patterns which can be the main sources to recover or reconstruct our historical values. For example, in China, during the Second World War, a large number of historical sites were ruined including castles and pristine outfits. Thanks to the invention of cameras, numerous pictures were taken during that time have been contributing to the reconstruction of several old castles and recovery of previously empirical outfits.

Not only does technology save the world ancestral cultures, but it can also promote them to their future generations. The development of technology encourages people to discover human history, including traditional ways of life in far more attractive ways. With the appearance of virtual reality goggles, people can enjoy a museum tour at their houses instead of queuing for hours to get inside the museums. As a result, all inherited values are preserved in the best condition without any depreciation for next generations. Lastly, it is arguable that changes in society lead to the disappearance of traditional cultural values, instead of technology. Obviously, a large number of traditional ways of life are not suitable for the modern lifestyle and must be eliminated. A clear example is the sacrifice of alive human to gods that is no longer existence in our current generation.

In conclusion, technology does not cause the loss of any traditional cultures; instead, it helps to save and promote human history for future generations.

People should follow the customs and traditions when people start to live in a new country. To what extent do you agree and disagree?

These days, there has been a growing trend of migrating to other countries to work, study or travel, causing some public controversies. It has been argued that local people should accept foreigners’ cultural differences, I agree that people should adapt to the local.

On the one hand, there are several reasons why newcomers will get into difficulties if they do not follow the culture of the host country. First, since some newcomers show a lack of respect for the behaviors and regulations of locals, they will become impolite and make the local citizens angry. For example, foreigners could be not only considered to be dirty but also fined heavily for littering the street with garbage and gum. Second, if the entrepreneurs underestimate how different business practices when they start up a business in a new country, their companies will be able to win and keep the customers, especially in fast-moving consumer goods sector. This means that they cannot compete more effectively with rivals and fail sooner or later in the foreign market.

On the other hand, I believe that it is more beneficial for foreigners to adapt to the norms of social behavior in the new country. First, by showing respect for the local lifestyle, the newcomers will be welcomed by the local people. As a result, they can build the close relationships and mutual understanding with the host community which lead to greater integration. Second, foreigners would gain more interesting experience from enjoying aspects of local customs and traditions, which allows them to blend into the community life and avoid social isolation. For instance, Vietnamese people in the USA not only celebrate Lunar New Year, but also often participate in the local New Year celebrations and fireworks in some major cities which make them feel that they belong to their new countries.

In conclusion, although everyone has their own culture, it seems me that people should integrate fully into society in the host countries.

Model 2

People’s opinion differing as to whether or not the adaptation for local customs and traditions is a crucial element for people who arrive to live in a new country. I completely agree that blending into the local community is totally necessary.

Newcomers will face a plenty of difficulties if they try to preserve national identity when you come to reside abroad. For example, the top priorities for an entrepreneur who starts up a business are the host country’s law and the need of regional inhabitants. It is very easy for a new business to be close to the threat of bankruptcy if they neglect this aforementioned factors. Besides, if recent migrates do not respect local customs, they will have some serious problems that they have never thought before. In India, for instance, cows are honored as a part of Hindu in particular and Indian in general so the absolute prohibition of killing cows or eating beef seems to be an Indian common law.

There are many benefits for immigrates who are likely to adopt local customs and traditions. Firstly, social relationships will be strengthened thanks to controlling standards of behavior and attitude reasonably. As a result, the better the relationship is, the more enjoyable life they can have. Secondly, new citizens getting on well with their neighbors via friendly attitudes will receive the more enthusiastic help than those who keep isolated from people around. For example, neighbors will provide accurate and relevant information when new residents need to know about their new living area such as the position of a hospital or cheap accommodation.

In conclusion, I would argue that it is strictly essential for new inhabitants to transform into the host community’s customs in order to enjoy fully their life.

Multi-cultural societies, in which there is a mixture of different ethnic people, bring more benefits than drawbacks to a country. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Today, immigration has become one of the most prominent issues all over the world. This trend has led to the development of various mixed cultural societies such as the US, the UK, Canada and Australia. Some people believe this trend exerts more merits than shortcomings to any nation. Personally, I totally support this viewpoint as I discuss below.

To begin with, the inflows of immigrants are probably beneficial to any society. Firstly, there would be more investments, new sources of the skillful labor force and new ways of thinking brought to host countries. These factors are crucial to increasing the competitiveness, effectiveness, and productivity of any country. Secondly, immigrants work closely with local residents in all aspects of life, creating more opportunities to sharpen mutual understanding among individuals. Also, the level of tolerance would be increased drastically as one individual would be more sympathetic about the matters of other people.

However, this trend does come with various negative features. At times, certain conflicts might arise, especially when immigrants try to maintain the cultures and customs of their home countries, which might not be widely accepted in a host country. This would expose them to numerous obstacles and deter them from assimilating new lifestyle. Such matter, nevertheless, sooner or later would be dealt with successfully as diversity and equality are key contributors to the development of culture-rich societies.

In conclusion, a mixture of cultures and customs results in both advantages and disadvantages to any nation though the latter is believed to be trivial and can be completely resolved in multi-cultural societies.

There are many different types of music in the world today. Why do we need music? Is the traditional music of a country more important than the international music that is heard everywhere nowadays?

Various types of music have been made increasingly worldwide and accessible in recent years. It is an undeniable fact that music is virtually indispensable to our lives for a number of reasons. However, whether it is traditional or international, both music genres/kinds are strongly believed to play certain integral parts in today society.

The role of music in human lives is comparatively direct and pivotal. Firstly, it is completely clear that music prevents negative and unwanted feelings in many aspects of life. For example, those who often get strained or troubled at work might usually use music to help them ease their minds. Secondly, music plays a vital and huge part in terms of festivals, events, and performances. Without music, a show could be considered extremely unfulfilled and dried due to the lack of sounds and symphonies. Therefore, music can be concluded to have giant impacts on the general public. For example, music has connected people all around the world as a sign of unity. The One Love Manchester concert by Ariana Grande in collaboration with a number of A-list stars has shown an unprecedented power of music in healing and empowering people to stand strong after the tragic terrorist attack in Manchester.

Nevertheless, traditional and international music have recently been compared and judged as to which more valuable/effectual/important. Although both music types are preferred and listened to the same extent, each one shares different characters and styles. The country type is considered to be more conventional and usually played in traditional or local shows and events. Yet, absorbing international music can help people integrate and become more updated to friends living in other parts of the globe.

All in all, the fact that music is growing more and more favoured is, by all means, a positive development because of its practical benefits. Also, it is convinced that traditional and international music to some extent completes each other.

In some cultures, the old age is more valued, while in some cultures youth is more valued. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

People have different views about the values embraced/upheld by the old generation’s culture and youth culture. Some consider that the elderly plays an important role in the society and vice versa. In my opinion, despite the differentiation of age, both generations make an essential contribution to human civilization.

First of all, the old population has an integral part to play in the build-up of a well-rounded society. It is undeniable that old people have a wealth of real-life experiences and deep wisdom as they have lived through situations others cannot imagine. Also, such precious expertise enables them to give careful consideration and avoid a variety of mistakes. Therefore, they often perform as consultants and leaders in organizations or decision-makers in their families. Furthermore, in spite of the limitation of physical health, they always desire to support both their families and the society as a whole. To be precise, old individuals frequently take care of their grandchildren at home and participate in many/a wide range of charity activities as volunteers or donors.

On the other hand, young adults are essential parts of our world as they are regarded as the future backbone of social development. Firstly, they are the primary labor forces that create the majority of material and spiritual products because of their excellent physical and mental health condition. Moreover, this group of age is rich in creation, curiosity, and motivation that promote novel discoveries and innovations both fostering economic and social advancement. Last but not least, the young generation is also the main reproduction force that assures the sustainable development of human beings.

With the reasoning mentioned above, I would like to conclude that all people who live in our society have their own value whatever generation they belong to/regardless of the generation they belong to/are identified with.

Several languages are in danger of extinction because they are spoken by very small numbers of people. Some people say that governments should spend public money on saving these languages, while others believe that would be a waste of money. Discuss both these views and give your opinion.

Globalization has been taking place so fast that some languages such as English, Spanish or Chinese have become virtually universal languages, which effectively helps to foster communications among various nations while unpopular languages spoken by ethnic minorities are likely to go extinct. Some people believe that public investments in saving the highly likely-extinct languages are totally wasteful and futile. However, I believe all language should be protected and preserved.

On the one hand, the biggest drawback of saving minority language is the problem in efficiency with which people are confronted. Firstly, there have been millions of people in need of help to overcome far more urgent issues such as battling against severe starvation or mass disease, it followed, then it followed that investment on minority language is reportedly considered a needless waste of money. Secondly, the wider the variety of languages is, the less efficient the conversations among people coming from different countries are. For example, the fact that people speaking different languages have to make much more effort and time as well as misunderstand each other when communicating make transaction cost increase.

Despite the above argument, I believe that governments should immediately embark upon protecting and preserving the languages that are less spoken. A language not only is the means of communication but also reflects distinctive cultures of various nations. If a significant number of languages go extinct, the world will be standardized and there will be a decline in cultural diversity. As a result, societies are unlikely to progress to higher stages of development.

In conclusion, I believe that the short-term benefits in term of cost saving, which is derived from the objection against saving the minor languages should not outweigh the long benefits in term of high diversity.

Scientists say that in the future humanity will speak the same language. Do you think this is a positive or negative social development?

Some researchers assume that humans will jointly communicate by solely one language around the world in the future. While I acknowledge that this positively affects on our society, I would argue that this also brings us cons.

On the one hand, regarding benefits, it is dominant for humans to speak official terminology in several disciplines such as technology or businesses. For example, English is a prevalent language which is considered to be the second global language. The co-operation among humans as well as international meetings are held in English. Therefore, people can understand what the others are talking about and quickly gain access to information. Furthermore, using alike motherland language empowers us to widen our perspective of life. For instance, in recent years, there are a handful of books and magazines written in English. If we know English, we can obtain broader knowledge about not only other countries’ education but also their traditions.

On the other hand, I still believe that it also has negative impacts on our society. It is undeniable that speaking the same language can defend our countries from outside intruders. However, almost all countries virtually possess our own customs as well as distinctive languages because languages are related to historical events. If people use the same mother tongue, this could lead to elimination in different cultures among nations all over the world. For example, if Chinese people use English as an official language, a majority of historical monuments are associated with the Chinese language will gradually disappear from our minds and the young generations cannot have thorough insights into not only traditional values and identity of China but also Chinese language.

In conclusion, while I agree that communicating the same language will help humans enhance knowledge, but this is by no means that we can conserve our precious history.

Model 2

Scientists predict that there will be a specific language which can be globally spoken by all people in the future. While this trend brings about some undeniable benefits, I believe that the disadvantages worth considering.

On the one hand, it is true that universal dialect may help people remove language barriers, encouraging people from different corners of the world to convey their thoughts and ideas more effectively. As applying for a job in overseas companies or travelling to foreign nations, for example, using the same language helps people avoid misunderstanding in communication. Therefore, it would lead to a rapid working process or a satisfying journey. In other words, language may bridge the gap between diverse groups of people and enable them to live in harmony.

On the other hand, instead of gaining great benefits from using a specific language, there would be a number of dangers to be faced. Firstly, the cultural diversity will be on the edge of extinction. For example, there will be no events such as Tet in which Vietnamese people return homes, cook traditional food and share happiness together. As a result, people will lose multitude types of cuisines, national clothes, as well as their glorious history. Secondly, the widespread of using the same language cause the other languages to disappear. Therefore, a huge knowledge in books and ancient documents written in different languages cannot be understood and absorbed. For this reason, an enormous amount of valuable/priceless information will be missed.

In conclusion, although a universal language might make an outstanding contribution to future humankind/human beings, I firmly hold the views that the drawbacks are more significant.

Some people think that it is good for a country’s culture to import foreign movies and TV programmes. Others think that it is better to produce these locally. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people argue that international movies and TV programs imported bring benefits to a country’s culture while many people suppose that movies and TV programmes ought to be made domestically only. I would argue that it is better to import international TV programs.

On the one hand, there are some reasons why national films and shows are beneficial for their own cultures. The first reason would be that local TV shows create a huge opportunity to educate residents about their culture and history. As a result, patriotism and national pride will be promoted and expanded for all local people to know and they will appreciate their traditions and their ways of life more. Furthermore, such entertainment relates to the culture and language of the audience which brings them satisfaction and enjoyment. For example, in China, the adaptation of the show called The Voice, which consists of Chinese famous artists who are the coaches for young talents, always brings enjoyment to millions of viewers throughout the country.

On the other hand, I believe that the importation of TV entertainment from foreign countries is advantageous to some extent. Firstly, people can broaden their own knowledge about different cultures through watching some kinds of TV shows. For instance, the American film “Titanic” is not only a disaster movie, but also gives an idea about the history of emigration from Europe to the USA. Secondly, many foreign programs offer countless opportunities for residents to learn languages through listen to foreigners or read the scripts, such as the US TV series “Like”.

In conclusion, although both imported, and local films and shows are good for a country’s culture, it seems to me that buying other countries entertainment programs is much better.

Model 2

There have been different arguments whether international or domestic films and telecasts are better for a culture. From my perspective, both of these categories are equally crucial.

On the one hand, I believe that foreign movies and TV programs considerably contribute to the cultural diversity of their host nation. Firstly, they enable native residents to understand various cultural customs from other parts of the world. In fact, people are likely to gain knowledge about other cultures merely by watching imported films and programs. Secondly, foreign movies and telecasts could be able to raise public awareness of a particular community about global trends which are not popular in its own country. For example, thanks to the Hollywood blockbuster “The day after tomorrow,” Vietnamese people now realize of the significance of the climate change and how to develop a sustainable economy in today’s world.

On the other hand, I would argue that in an era of globalization, domestic movies and television channels are vital for maintaining unique cultural features of each country. To be more specific, national films and telecasts could provide viewers with insightful information about local traditions, which cannot be found in any other imported movies or TV programs. Even a short cartoon like “The story about God Giong” could be able to teach children Vietnamese’s patriotism and courage. Additionally, traditional customs could be passed on younger generations through local films and telecasts. Such values could help people to know more about the social and cultural patterns of their countries.

In conclusion, it appears to me that the governments should keep a balance between local and foreign films and telecasts to maintain their original traditions as well as to absorb good cultural practices of other nations.

Model 3

It is true that foreign films have become more popular than domestically produced films. There are a variety of reasons for such trend and thus authorities should pay more attention to local film industries.

There are various reasons why people find foreign movies more enjoyable. Firstly, as huge budgets are invested in films in many countries they soon gain significant success worldwide. These films, therefore, attract many local and international audiences by their spectacular action scenes, special effects, beautiful soundtracks and amazing shoots. “The Beauty and the Beast” produced by Walt Disney is a clear example for that. Disney spent 160 million dollars on that film and it earned 400 million dollars in its opening weeks. Furthermore, famous actors, actresses or directors are important factors making millions of viewers go to the cinema every day. They love the movies because of Hugh Jackman or Brad Pitt. As a result, poor quality, low budget local films always are often inferior in their values compared to those films.

To improve this situation, governments should give more financial support to local film industries. Although there are many talented people in local film field their small budget films do not have any significant appeal to local residents. Financial support from governments brings obvious benefits such as increasing film sales and improving film quality as well as attracting more tourists to local sightseeing. For example, Korean films have developed around the world and through films, unique culture and beautiful places in Korean have been known widely by people around the world. Visitors travelling to Korea increase annually thanks to that.

In conclusion, I believe that governments should support local films so that they can compete with the foreign productions which recently dominate the market.

Model 4

Nowadays, people can access a lot of entertainments such as films and TV channels. While a country may benefit from making its own programmes, I would argue/prove that it is advisable to import those media/genres from abroad.

There are several reasons why producers should create culturally relevant/related programmes. Firstly, it would be a good way of preserving and conveying the national character/heritage to the public. Some historical dramas seemingly introduce a wide range of the country’s important landmarks. When individuals/ the nationals enjoy/see those films, they not only gain useful information about their nation’s history but also deliver these cultural values to even foreigners. Secondly, making local production with the aim of meeting people’s demand also brings a country’s entertainment industry an economic efficiency. More consumption in amuses leads to a great/tremendous increase in domestic income/the national profit.

On the other hand, it is apparently more beneficial to import foreign productions. One particular/specific reason is that international programmes are considered a means of broadening people’s horizon about surrounding countries. Some channels present European parental teaching and caring, which helps couples raise their children properly. The other reason is these media are the places/channels where residents/nationals/the locals are able to study foreign languages. Some English teaching networks provide/ bring about a lot of practical skills for/to learners and as a result, there is no need for them to go abroad to explore other nation’s language and culture.

For the reasons mentioned above, it seems to me that a nation should trade in/let international programmes in to bring more benefits/tremendously benefit [to] its culture.

Model 5

It is true that the question of whether to import movies or TV programs from overseas or produce them within their own country remains a source of controversy. While many people believe that it is better to watch movies that are produced locally, I would argue that it is necessary to promote local entertainment industry.

On the one hand, there are many reasons why foreign films or programs play an integral part in people’s spiritual life. Firstly, people are likely to learn cultures of other countries, which they may consider as an adventure or entertainment. For instance, Titanic is not only a disaster movie but also a great chance to learn about emigration from Europe to the USA. In addition, these movies also help many people improve their language skills, combining learning and enjoyment. For example, many Vietnamese students have benefited from watching TV series like Friends.

On the other hand, I would argue that local movies or TV programs benefit young generations. The main reason is that thanks to these films or programs, people have countless opportunities to understand about their cultures, history, and manners. For example, instead of using school textbooks alone to illustrate history lessons, students today can watch locally-made documentaries or movies. By doing this, students are no longer afraid of studying history and this could raise an interest in learning this subject. Moreover, local TV shows and films are relevant to everyday experiences and a familiar way of life. Even when copyright ideas from other countries are used, producers are still able to adapt these to make shows such as Vietnamese version of The Voice.

To conclude, although both local films and foreign movies contribute to the development of the entertainment of the nation, it seems to me it is better to support local films and programs due to their roles as education and entertainment.

Several languages are in danger of extinction because they are spoken by a very small number of people. Some people say that governments should spend public money on saving these languages, while others believe that would be a waste of money. Discuss both these views and give your opinion.

Globalization has been taking place so fast that some languages such as English, Spanish or Chinese have become virtually universal languages, which effectively helps to foster communications among various nations while unpopular languages spoken by ethnic minorities are more likely to go extinct. Therefore, some people believe that public investments on saving the highly likely-extinct languages are totally wasteful and futile; However, I believe all languages should be protected and preserved.  

On the one hand, the biggest drawback of saving minority languages is the problem in efficiency which people are confronted. Firstly, there have been millions of people in need of help to overcome far more urgent issues such as battling against severe starvation or mass disease, and then it followed that investment on minority language is reportedly considered a needless waste of money. Secondly, the wider the variety of languages is, the less efficient the conversations among people coming from different countries are. For example, the fact that people speaking different languages have to make much more effort and time as well as misunderstand each other when communicating make transaction cost increase.

Despite the above argument, I believe that governments should immediately embark upon protecting and preserving the languages that are less spoken. A language not only is the means of communication but also reflects distinctive cultures of various nations. If a significant number of languages go extinct, the world will be standardized and there will be a decline in cultural diversity. As a result, societies are unlikely to progress to higher stages of development.

In conclusion, I believe that the short-term benefits in term of cost saving, which is derived from the objection against saving the minor languages should not outweigh the long benefits in term of high diversity.

291 words

People should follow the customs and traditions when people start to live in a new country. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In the modern busy life, there are a large number of immigrants who have been willing to have a comfortable life in other nations. Many advocate that people should conform to the local customs and traditions when they settle in a new country. From my respective, I strongly agree with this idea because of some problems and benefits that people can face with them.

There are two important reasons why newcomers should blend into the local culture in the host country. Firstly, the refusal to adapt to host environment would create a cultural barrier for immigrants. This leads to social isolation, which has negative influences on people’s lives. Secondly, it is logical/true that limited knowledge of local customs may result in some illegal actions in the host country and make local/native people unpleased. For instance, in Singapore, one of the cleanest countries in Asia, local residents consider anyone dirty and ill-mannered if they litter the street or spit gum in the public.

Newcomers can gain some benefits if they adopt the customs and traditions of a new country. One benefit is that if immigrants behave in accordance with the local norms, they will be accepted easily by local inhabitants, and as a result, they can receive/gain respects and affections as well as some help from the local. For example, when the enterprises want to expand their production in a new country, they must be aware of business practices there, which provides them with useful information to maximise profits. Another benefit is that newcomers might gain the richness of knowledge by virtue of the local customs and traditions, which enables them to actively participate in the activities of the community. In many festivals, people are able to participate/join freely and feel harmonious like their own country.

In conclusion, I would argue that people who dwell in a new country should follow the customs and traditions which local people observe.

Model 2

In recent years, there has been a growing trend of travelling to foreign countries around the world, thanks to globalization. Although many people argue that tourists should not be required to conform to the local customs and traditions when they make a journey aboard, plenty of evidence suggests that the opposite is necessary.

There are a number of reasons why following the community/native culture is beneficial to/ brings various benefits to themselves. First, people who visit another nation would be more welcomed by inhabitants in the host country, if they are willing to adapt to the local practices and conventions. As a result, foreigners will make friends more easily and they will be received help from the residents, which minimizes the difficulties of getting used to customs of other countries. Second, the travelling experience that visitors will gain from being a participant in the norms of social behavior is priceless in their life. Therefore, they can avoid any issues especially getting into trouble with the police occurring from violating the rules of destination countries. For example, my younger sister, a twelfth grades student, once told me that she not only was fined 200 dollars during her holiday in Singapore but also was arrested to the police station all day because she threw away rubbish by accident in the street.

It should be acknowledged that the local people would have a variety of advantages from tourists’ compliance with their culture. One of these advantages/benefits is that the citizens do not have to adjust their way of life, so they can preserve their cultural and historical monuments. It is an extremely important issue to contribute to the enduring development of human societies, in either economy or politics. In addition, by maintaining unique cultures and ancient traditions, the government will be able to attract more and more holidaymakers to visit the country, which brings advantages to not only those who run business in tourist industry but also the society as a whole as there will be more employment and money to encourage the progress of the region.

 In conclusion, it is essential to obey the different culture when going to a foreign one as this benefits not only the tourists themselves but also the local residents in the host country.

There are many different types of music in the world today. Why do we need music? Is the traditional music of a country more important than the international music that is heard everywhere nowadays?

It is generally known that music holds an indispensable position for our mentality. There is a wide range of explanations for the necessity of music. Personally, I hold the perception that the traditional music of a country, compared with foreign music, is definitely more invaluable. It is undoubted that music is of necessity for human’s lives.

First of all, music is considered as an efficiently recreational activity for people after a long day of hard work. Students and officers nowadays have to suffer from an enormous amount of stress from their study and work. As a matter of fact, music allows them to refresh their own moods and to be full of beans. Secondly, music is highly appreciated for its representation of culture and custom of a country. For instance, Vietnamese folk songs vividly convey how industrious Vietnamese is to introduce to international visitors.

From my perspective, the value of the traditional music overweighs that of the international one which is widely listened to by a vast majority of young people, especially teenagers all over the world. Despite the fact that hit songs are eventful, catchy and bring us enthusiasm, they have no virtuous or meaningful messages. The traditional music, meanwhile, passes historical and traditional values on the fellow generations, which reminds them of patriotism and national proudness. Moreover, International music has recently been used for commercial purposes to gain a reputation for entertainment companies or celebrities, it has no value at all in the long run.

In conclusion, music plays a vital part in life and I strongly believe that the role of the traditional music should be recognized than that of the international music.

276 words


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Log In

Or with username:

Forgot password?

Don't have an account? Register

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.