Task 2 Essay Sample: Modernization

Just Leave your name and email here, we will send all IELTS update to you. No spam and adverts, that's a promise.
Some people say that we do not need printed newspapers anymore. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

In developing societies, it would be certainly undeniable that printed newspapers are now losing popularity and at great unnecessity. While I tend towards this point of view, I believe that printed papers are still useful and should not be forgotten.

On the one hand, there are various compelling reasons associated with the irrelevance of printed papers to a contemporary world. Firstly, newspapers are more likely to be a thing of the past. In fact, they are unable to provide the most up-to-minute news or to carry the latest breaking news stories. As a consequence, printed newspapers are now becoming only a source of stale news, which is a major reason why they have become less compatible and prevalent. Another primary factor is that printed papers are overwhelmed by the power of online news. For instance, young adults have a growing tendency to be updated through electronic media instead of getting access to outdated information from printed newspapers.

On the other hand, I believe that printed media remain a vital source of information and are certainly applicable in the modern world. The main reason is that newspapers are the most traditional form of communication which [or that] has led people to happier [or more enjoyable] lives, especially for the elderly. The old generations, for example [or in particular], do [or may] not have the opportunity [or capacity] to get online, thus keep being old-fashioned. Furthermore, the way of delivering new coverages of events and carrying many stories in newspapers still maintain the reliability. For instance, it seems that the significant events in the private lives of celebrities could never be trusted online but only through the headlines of the old-fashioned newspapers.

In conclusion, even though the traditionally printed news is becoming less common in the modern world, I would argue that their functions are irreplaceable

Although more and more people read news on the Internet, newspapers will remain the most important source of news. Do you agree or disagree?

In recent year, online news and conventional newspapers have been given higher weight by the general public. Many adopt a view that all newspapers should be replaced by the online news in the digital age. However, to the best of my knowledge, traditional newspapers remains the source of news in our life.

On one hand, people can recognize that the growth of accessing the internet has led the proportion of online news increasing significantly. Anecdotal evidence shows that the online is able to provide up to the news as it happens, 24 hours a day every day so you can easy to access this everywhere on your mobile phone or laptop with the internet. And then you can share, express your comments on the social media. A typical example is an explosion in the use of platforms as Facebook, YouTube, twister where people can share the views and minds for free. In addition, the more colour pictures, clips are attached to this news the more details are accessed.

 On the other hand, conventional newspapers still play a crucial role in spiritual life. In the rural area where the internet is limited or the elder can’t able to access the internet, it remains the traditional means of communicating the news. Because of the farming life, people like the experience of holding and reading a newspaper rather than looking at a computer screen. In addition, it also makes the people trust as reliable news which is published by the professional journalists and editors.

 In conclusion, despite the internet age, the newspapers have contributed to the knowledge is provided for the people. But we also encourage the development of the online news to meet the demand for information.

Model 2

It is argued that newspapers are still the major source of news although more and more people nowadays prefer surfing the Internet for reading news. I strongly disagree with this opinion. It is true that newspaper has some drawbacks which could affect its popularity.

Firstly, the process of editing, printing and distributing printed editions is timeconsuming, resulting in the fact that breaking news in the newspapers has been on the Internet for a while. In fact, following online news could provide people with up-to-the-minute news as it happens. As a result, readers nowadays tend to rely on the Internet as the main source of news. Secondly, the cost is also a contributing factor to the falling circulation of newspapers. This is due to the fact that in the economic downturn with the increased unemployment, people prefer reading the freely available newspaper instead of buying printed version to save their money.

In modern times, thanks to the invention of hi-tech devices such as smartphones and tablets, people could access the Internet in order to keep up to date with the latest news around the world in a few seconds. Moreover, the presence of social media like Facebook and Instagram might help users to interact with the social news while chatting with their beloved ones. It is common that many online publishers these days take full advantages of social pages to enhance their public image by sharing online articles stemming from their websites.

In conclusion, with what I have mentioned above, I completely believe that the Internet’s advantages could surpass the newspaper to become the major source of news.

Model 3

There is no doubt that online news has become very familiar to everyone. While some people believe that traditional newspaper plays a vital role in our daily life, I would argue that online articles are more beneficial to the community.

Firstly, it is clear that speed and conveniences are the prime merits of consuming information on the Internet. Thanks to the network’s modern technical functions, the online sources are updated up to the minutes with information over the world; therefore, it offers readers chances to access to not only local breaking news, but also international updated reports. Furthermore, by using the connected mobile phones or laptops, users can surf the websites easily anywhere or anytime they want. Obviously, it is ubiquitous and easy for people to discover online sources.

Secondly, reading online news is likely to be more economical and environmentally-friendly. In fact, unlike printed editions, there is no need to use paper, ink or large printers to introduce online versions; consequently, publishers might save their operating costs, and readers also can surf the internet freely instead of expending money on buying newspapers. In addition, the fewer amount of paper is consumed in online news production, the fewer trees are cut down; as a result, our environment will be protected better. Clearly, consuming online information seems to be an effective solution to save expenditure of both publishers and readers, and help to protect our environment as well.

In conclusion, although numerous of people are in favor of conventional newspaper, I suggest that online news is an essential part of modern society because it brings conveniences, economic and eco-friendly advantages to people.

The main purpose of public libraries is to provide books and they do not waste their limited resources and space on providing expensive hi-tech media such as computer software, videos, and DVDs. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement.

It is argued that public libraries are the only places with an array of books, which should not be equipped with advanced forms of storing media like CD-ROMS, video or computers. Personally, I completely disagree with this view because I believe that modern media plays an essential part in retaining information as well as books.

 In the digital age, people have more effective measures to save information than in the past. The first reason is that storing resource of information by means of media is convenient for users as well as librarians. Because of the immense storage capacity of DVDs, people tend to save data on a DVD rather than on a bookshelf. Therefore, librarians can save more space and time in managing the resource of information. In addition to, this is also friendly for readers when books are available online or are stored in DVDs, meaning that readers can read books online at their home or anywhere they like through the Internet instead of coming to public libraries.

Furthermore, digital means of media can retain information much longer than traditional forms, because they are able to protect books from human activities, fire, and other factors. While books in traditional libraries just serve readers for only a few hundred years, digital files easily duplicate to be restored for a long period of time. In fact, accessing information through multiple media with the combination of images and videos is much more interesting.

In conclusion, there has been the argument that multimedia facilities are quite expensive. This may be true to some extent. However, the investment in modernizing libraries is rewarding and should be encouraged.

Countries become more developed due to mix of different people and their culture. Do you agree or disagree?

In this era of globalization, few countries are left from extensive mixing of people and their cultures. Countries are becoming mere political regions and nations, reminder of bygone traditions. I believe this is happening clearly for the better. The most beneficial contribution of population mixing is perhaps the complimenting of peoples, which encounter and fuse with each other, for mutual development.

When people cross borders, they carry their ideas, knowledge and skills and let them blend with those of others. The compound is ideally beneficial because people generally take up and sustain what is good for them. For this blending of knowledge and ideas, today’s world is much more convenient and harmonious than it was less than a century ago. Enhancement of society, which is done easiest through blending of people, also has to be stated. A country may be conservative and grow financially, but today development is a socio-economic affair. This means that societies and countries do not develop merely by increasing monetary wealth but must also grow through the improvement of their people, which is done through “curing people by people.”

Detractors of such opinion say that we’re losing our cultural and national identities as more and more exotic ideas, values and customs are being domesticated. This perhaps does have a factual base since blending of cultures definitely modifies customs. But such modification can hardly be called loss. Identities are made of long time traditions, which were “grown” somewhere back in time, so the loss that some may blame population mixing for may not be a loss at all, but possibly be the process of taking up newer identities or augmenting the already cherished ones. It is foolish, therefore, to be critical of mixing of people and culture, at least in this way.

Hence, I conclude that mixing of people and their cultures, despite its critics and occasional blemishes, is taking the whole world to a better place.

In recent years, many small local shops have closed because customers travel to large shopping centers or malls to do their shopping. Is this a positive or a negative development? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Recent years have witnessed a falling/ decreasing number of small local shops due to the fact that clients/ consumers usually choose to go malls for their shopping. This essay will firstly, discuss the diversity of products as one of the main advantages of this and secondly, outline inconvenience when going a long distance to buy something as one of the main disadvantages.

To begin with, the reasons for the increasing popularity of shopping centers among consumers are various. Initially, there is a wide range of products which have the adequate quality to meet the diverse needs of clients, ranging from hygienic foods to cutting-edge gadgets. Furthermore, the customer service there is always better than local shops. It is practically proven that almost issues which clients have encountered when buying items in shopping centers would be resolved immediately. My wife, for example, bought a new dress but she found that there was a minor defect on it when it was delivered at home. The shop manager promptly changed another one for my wife when receiving a complaint from her.

However, some disadvantages of making transactions in a big shopping mall are undeniable. Firstly, customers can find it inconvenient to purchase stuff for their family. To be more specific, it would be an extreme waste of time for buyers to purchase products at the shopping mall because of the long distance from their house, especially in the cases they just want to buy an item. More importantly, competitive factors which come from the local shops are becoming no longer popular. It would eventually end up raising the price of products and services in the future.

In conclusion, people should take both the benefits and drawbacks of shopping malls into consideration before making a decision. This is because human beings will always want to have a sense of self-fulfillment.

Nowadays young people spend too much of their free time in shopping malls. Some people fear that this may have negative effects on young people and the society they live in. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Spending an excessive amount of spare time in shopping centers is said/ believed to bring negative impacts on the young/ youngsters and their society. While I accept the justification for this view to certain extents, there are reasons for me to feel convinced towards an opposite view.

On the one hand, there are a variety of reasons why spending time excessively in shopping malls is detrimental. Firstly, when young people waste excessive time for shopping, they will do not have enough time to take part in other meaningful activities such as reading books, playing sports or doing/ taking up exercises.

Therefore, they may fall behind their study as well as their peers. Secondly, they are likely to misspend a great deal of money on unnecessary items, this may make them face financial troubles. For example, buying products without planning may cause the shortage of money to pay for daily fees/ expenses like water supply or electronic bills. On the other hand, go shopping regularly also brings some benefits to people and society. When people find a relaxation method after working or studying hour, shopping is an effective way to release stress after a day of working or studying excessively. Furthermore, the rise of product consumption helps to promote manufacture as well as create more jobs. This is a remarkable contribution to the growth of national economy.

In conclusion, it seems evident that spending time in shopping malls has both negative and positive impacts on people.

In many countries, more and more people choose to buy imported food rather than food produced locally. Why people buy imported food? What could be done to encourage people to buy local food?

Nowadays/recently/in recent years, customers in many countries tend to purchase and consume imported food products instead of domestic food. This trend can be ascribed to numerous reasons and it might be addressed by some practical ways performed by the government and local authorities to motivate people to buy local food.

On the one hand, it is understandable why people prefer imported nourishment rather than food produced in their country. First and foremost, customers think foreign food by far has better quality than local food so they are willing to spend a large amount of money on buying imported food. For instance, in Viet Nam, consumers show significant interest in imported food as they hold the belief that nourishment with the foreign tag is better even if it costs them a great deal. Another significant reason is that in many domestic companies, they usually add some chemical preservatives as well as additives which may be detrimental to people’s health. This could result in the fact that they want to prolong time preserving food and local authorities do not impose any strict laws on harmful ingredients added to food in factories.

However, measures must be taken by the government and local authorities to encourage consumers to buy domestic food. The first solution would be the government should prioritize expenditure on organizing programs or campaigns in order to raise citizens’ awareness about the necessity of purchasing local food. Furthermore, the government and local authorities must punish severely companies using preservatives which affect negatively on people health and well-being. In addition, companies need to pay more attention to not only products quality but also prices to enhance competitive advantages compared to charges of foreign firms.

In conclusion, it is clear that there are various reasons for why imported food is more favored than local food and steps need to be taken to tackle this problem.

Millions of people every year move to English speaking countries such as Australia, Britain or America, in order to study at school, college or university. Why do so many people want to study in English? Why is English such an important international language? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Recent decades have witnessed an increasing number of people who go to English speaking countries for their study. There are several reasons why they choose English as the primary language in their academic work as well as why English is a global language.

On the one hand, a lot of people want to undertake their study in English for various reasons. Initially, it is undeniable that most of the academic materials are in English. Therefore, students can easily get a good grasp of these valuable resources which support their study in the libraries or on the Internet. Apart from the academic knowledge that they have, English will be a key factor to help them seize the various opportunities such as jobs. Indeed, employers today always require proficient English as one of the leading criteria when evaluating the candidates’ profile.

On the other hand, there are a variety of reasons why English is a crucial international language. Firstly, it may not be the most spoken language in the world, but it is the official foreign language in many countries. It is estimated that the number of people who use it on a regular basis is two billion. Secondly, English is used around the world, especially in countries where the UK has historically little influences. It is learned as a principal subject in most schools in the majority of countries. In addition, with the basics of the English language, people can make themselves understood in nearly every corner of the world. For example, visitors who know English can easily communicate with local people at their destinations.

In conclusion, there are some obvious reasons that explain many people choose to study in English and some clear reasons which account for an importance of 494 English are identified.

Living in big cities is bad for people’s health. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

It is controversial that whether or not people’s health is negatively affected when they live in big cities. While these are the areas where citizens can receive the best healthcare services, I would argue that there are numerous threats to the physical conditions of inhabitants in large cities.

On the one hand, metropolitan zones always offer their residents/dwellers with high healthcare quality. These cities invest heavily in developing advanced hospitals with modern facilities and professional doctors; thus, citizens are able to get the best treatment with an ease of travel. Secondly, with the abundant appearance of fitness centers everywhere in the city which provide professional equipment for exercise, people can easily achieve a healthier lifestyle.

However, the health quality of residents in metropolitan areas could be reduced due to heavy environmental pollution and urban lifestyle. Firstly, these cities are the most densely populated regions with an enormous amount of garbage from residential zones and a great level of carbon emissions from transportation and manufacturing released in the environment. As a result, many citizens have been diagnosed with respiratory diseases such as asthma, which definitely correlates with air pollution. Moreover, the hectic pace of city life has a number of negative impacts on people’s health. People are so busy working that they do not have enough sleep and they have to eat fast food most of the time, which leads to health problems such as obesity and heart disease.

To conclude, inhabitants have to face a lot of health risks when living in major cities in spite of some advantages there.

These days, it seems that an increasing number of people are leaving rural areas to live in the city. Discuss some of the effects of rural depopulation (migration from the country to city) and suggest some ways in which this trend could be reversed.

Recently, it is a common phenomenon that more and more people from countryside crowd into metropolitan areas in search of employment and a decent life, which causes many obstacles to the city’s development. In this essay, I intend to discuss some impacts of this problem as well as some measures to stop or at least slow this trend down.

It is not difficult to recognize the negative effects of this trend on the city life. As a result of overcrowding, cities throughout the world today are increasingly prone to the environment and social problems. Obviously, problems such as air, water, and noise pollution are getting usual in such cities, which leads the city life to be uncomfortable indeed and causes some serious diseases. Ha Noi is a practical example of this. Further, the uncontrolled growth of cities also gives rise to social problems, such as high unemployment rate, crime, traffic congestion, the creation of slums. Therefore, the living conditions actually could not be as expected as people held when they left their hometowns for the cities.

In order to stem the tide of this rural depopulation and reduce the size of cities, I believe we should make the country life more attractive. Because the first and foremost cause of the matter is the lack of job prospects in the rural areas, so creating more jobs there is the best solution. However, on such a large scale, this remedy does need the actions of the government who might have not only an encouragement but also firm policy of relocating factories to rural areas. Moreover, by this way, the traffic congestion also would be solved as a dual effect. Another reason that so many people have left the country is in search of excitement in the city, so if facilities like shopping centres, hospitals, schools were available and better than now, country life would be more appealing and then people would not have the idea of migration to anywhere.

In conclusion, I believe we must all recognize how serious this problem is and how complex to solve it, so no solution is likely effective in the short term. However, for the sake of environment and living standard, it is vital that we should pay more attention and investment in rural places with the aim of creating 425 more job opportunities and community centres.

People in the community can buy cheaper products nowadays. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

It is true that many affordable commodities have been sold at low-priced these days. While the benefits of this trend cannot be denied, I would argue the drawbacks are more significant.

On the one hand, the provision of cheaper goods presents several advantages. Firstly, the society becomes safer to live when people have a chance to buy goods at a lower price on the shelves. It is because ones can meet their basic demands such as eating, dressing, personal belongings despite their limited incomes, which leads to a decline in crime rate such as stealing and robbing. Secondly, the national economy will be boosted because consumer purchasing power increases. Many manufacturing companies will expand their sales of consumer goods so more jobs opportunities are created, contributing to the general prosperity of the country.

On the other hand, there are serious disadvantages, which overshadow those advantages above. The primary reason for this view is that the quality of commodities might be taken for granted, as can be harmful to human health. For example, that a large scale of toxic vegetables and fruits have been imported from China at an extremely low price in recent years is one of the main causes of rising cancer rate in Vietnam. Another factor is the adverse impact on the environment when more and more factories are built to meet the market’s demand.

As a result, the surrounding is seriously polluted due to their toxic waste and exhaust. In conclusion, although the cheaper products have its own positive sides/benefits, the drawbacks of this trend are greater.

Model 2

It is believed that many products nowadays can be sold out at the low price. Although this trend may bring some detrimental effects, I would argue that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

On the one hand, admittedly, this trend leads to some negative impacts on life. Firstly, to gain the aim of the decreasing price, some producers/ manufacturers create goods with substandard quality. This means that products are made from disqualified ingredients which pose a threat to health. For example, a recent research showed that there were many toxic chemicals in China toys for children, as a consequence, they suffered from many illnesses, such as asthma, headache or stomachache, to name but a few. Furthermore, a loss of profit is more or less the result of low – priced production. Therefore, many manufacturers don’t really like the idea of cutting down the price of their products.

On the other hand, I am of the opinion that the advantages of cheaper/ inexpensive products are more significant. First of all, this trend can help people, especially underprivileged ones in all social status raise living standard. Thanks to the proliferation of technology, people can possess living facilities and meet basic necessities at reasonable and affordable prices. For instance, ten years ago, a mobile phone was a dream of many people yet, each person can own more than one at ease nowadays. Moreover, reducing price is likely to be an incentive for the economic growth. The reason is the competition among producers will, without doubt, make the price of products cheaper/ more affordable. Consequently, it encourages customers to spend money buying more goods.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the advantages of producing cheaper goods do outweigh the disadvantages.

Overpopulation of urban areas has led to numerous problems. Identify one or two serious ones and suggest the way that governments and individuals can tackle these problems.  

It is true that the problem of overpopulation in some metropolises has been getting worse in recent years. There are a variety of detrimental troubles, but steps can be taken to tackle those difficulties. In my opinion, there are two main problems has affected human life in urban areas because of the increase in population density. Firstly, overcrowded could make the rate of unemployment rate increase sharply. In fact, many graduate students even graduated with excellent degrees, cannot be employed because of the highly competitive advantages and the sufficiency in qualifying applicants. Secondly, overpopulation also has directly inferior effects on the standard of living in some considerable aspects such as health care, education, and pension schemes. For example, in school, it is hard for teachers to monitor the class and give meticulous instruction to all pupils if the number of students is over the accepted level.

Feasible solutions should be produced by governments and individuals to tackle these aforementioned problems so that the society would be better. The first measure would be to build up and develop new industrial zones and companies in remote areas. As a result, job vacancies will be created in the countryside, so it can limit the issues of emigration to big cities for pursuing jobs. Additionally, governments should concentrate on erecting infrastructure such as roads or railways for providing convenient transportation and reinforcing the trade between some regions. Moreover, to enhance the quality of life in rural areas, the government should invest money in advancing health care and educational services by constructing schools, hospitals with a well-educated workforce. Teachers, doctors or voluntary individuals can also support this improvement by devoting their efforts in some underprivileged towns.

In conclusion, various measures can be taken to tackle the problems that are certain to arise as the overpopulation.

In many countries, average life expectancy has been increasing. What problems will this cause for individuals and for society as a whole? Suggest some solution.

It is true that the quality of life has been improved in the Era of Electricity, which results in the increase of life expectancy. However, there are various problems behind this trend and should be addressed by governments in some practical ways.

The increase in average life expectancy causes enormous issues not only for individuals but also for the society. From an individual perspective, young people are overburdened with work to earn not only their own living but also their grandparents and parents’. In addition, youngsters must pay much higher taxes which will be utilized to subsidize for more dependent people. On a societal level, medical care for the elderly can become exhausted since the increasing number of old citizens who have plenty of chronic diseases may overload the limited resource.

The government should take some measures to tackle this issue effectively. One practical measure is that governments should impose laws which raise the retirement age. To be specific, the average retirement age in many nations is roughly 60-year old. Therefore, policy makers should enhance the retirement age to 65 for both men and women. Another essential measure is to encourage the elderly to lead healthy lifestyles. This can diminish a large number of old citizens having severe diseases and having to go to the hospital regularly.

As a result, a part of national budget’s spending for medical care might lessen and be utilized for economic growth purposes. In conclusion, the growth of mean life expectancy is a massive problem for numerous countries and solutions should be implemented urgently to tackle this issue.

Overpopulation of urban areas has led to numerous problems. Identify one or two serious ones and suggest ways that governments and individuals can tackle these problems.

The explosion of population in large cities has become a topic of public interest in many parts of the world. The consequences of this phenomenon are varied, and it is urgent that some measures should be taken to overcome these problems.

To begin with, there are two main adverse impacts caused by a rapid increase in the number of metropolitan citizens. The first negative influence is related to the rise in crimes in cities. As the number of new jobs created yearly cannot match to that of job seekers, the unemployment rate inevitably escalates; forcing many youngsters into criminal life to make a living. In addition, it also can intensify the high cost of living in urban areas. The overwhelming population in a certain area is likely to put a major strain on supplying accommodations including food, shelter, and healthcare. This means that people must pay much more money for these basic amenities compared to the past.

However, we totally can find effective ways to alleviate these repercussions. Firstly, accelerating modernization in rural regions should be given priority by the government. By moving as well as erecting more factories to the countryside, more job opportunities can be available for the locals, discouraging them from leaving their hometown for cities. Secondly, it is necessary for authorities to organize educational programs on methods of family planning like using proper contraceptives and sex issues as well, which will give a significant contribution in controlling the number of family members.

 In conclusion, I believe that proliferation of urban population can generate grave social problems and a cooperation between each individual and the government’s efforts are requisite for solving them.

Some people prefer to live in a house, while others feel that there are more advantages to living in an apartment. Are there more advantages than disadvantages of living in a house compared with living in an apartment? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

In recent years, many people choose to live in a private house. Although there are some obvious advantages of this trend, I would argue that living in a flat is far more beneficial.

To begin with, there are a variety of reasons why many people tend to live in a private house. Firstly, it is obvious that privacy is the most prominent element, which results in one’s choice for the house. In other words, residents are able to do whatever they like such as rebuilding the house or simply planting more trees in the garden in their own house without affecting/disturbing the neighbors. Secondly, those who live in a house have not to pay for building services so they may save a great deal of money. My family, for example, has both a house and an apartment in the city. We have to make a monthly payment for the apartment service, whereas no fees are applied to the house.

Despite the upsides that house brings, I strongly believe that living in an apartment is the best option. Initially, inhabitants who live in an apartment in the complex building are offered with a wide range of goods and services, thanks to the availability of shopping malls and service centers in the ground floor. Furthermore, it is safer to live apartments. It is due to the fact that surveillance cameras are installed everywhere in the building to make sure/maintain the security for the residents, especially those who often travel for work.

In conclusion, while I recognize the possible advantages of living in a house, it seems to me that living in an apartment is more beneficial overall.

The spread of multinational companies and resulting increase of globalization produces positive effects for everyone. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is clear that global companies have made great inroads into several local markets in other countries and significantly facilitate the globalization process. While some people are inclined to be against this trend, I believe that it is beneficial to each individual.

On the one hand, there are some explanations for oppositional opinions. The opponents suppose that the operation of multinational empires can diminish the diversity of products (on market). There are fewer choices for shoppers to compare and make final decisions, as the supermarket’s shelves seem to be filled with the same kinds of (a range of) goods like food, cosmetics, or even clothes and civil products from a handful of leading corporations compared to the sparse presence of local ones. Additionally, this also adversely affects small national/domestic companies which are much more inferior due to their limited financial sources and reputation, leading some to the brink of bankruptcy.

On the other hand, I am convinced that these cosmopolitan groups in combination with the development of globalization exert positive influences on the host country. Firstly, these companies can be highly considered as important job creators which make a contribution to solving the burden of unemployment to the local areas. For example, Unilever groups in Vietnam, which has the main headquarter in London, has annually generated a large number of jobs available and provided the stable income for many Vietnamese people. Secondly, globalization also allows people in developing countries to purchase the highquality goods at competitive prices in comparison with the imported ones because multinational companies can make use of the cheap labour in poorer countries in order to lower overheads and render price tags affordable for the locals.

 In conclusion, I am in favor of the expansion of Multinational Corporation and the enhancement of globalization because of their advantages they bring about.

In many countries, the quality of life in large cities is becoming worse. What are the causes for this problem? What measures do you think should be taken to tackle this problem?

Living standard plays an integral role in the development of most countries as well as human life. The quality of life in a number of large cities is negatively affected by many problems. From my perspective, there are several reasons behind this phenomenon such as pollution and overpopulation, and thus, some solutions should be adopted to tackle this issue.

First of all, the great population has a negative impact on the quality of life. Indeed, the bulk of cities seems to be over-populated, which results in the lack of land to build more and more buildings. Therefore, the governmental body must increase significantly the cost of an apartment accommodation and as the result, people have numerous challenges in finding their houses. Moreover, environmental problems are considered as a cause of decreasing life’s quality. For example, there are a variety of factories located in the centre of a city, which discharge chemical waste into most rivers and lakes as well as leading to air contamination, and as a result, this puts people’s health in danger.

Furthermore, the national bodies should have several measures to solve the issues. Firstly, the authority should encourage inhabitant’s migration to some part of rival areas. Obviously, by dint of applying this solution, the citizens might have more spaces to construct their houses instead of renting an apartment in the city. Secondly, the government can increase the level of punishment to most factories if they cause environmental issues. To illustrate, by dint of assuming their measure, a variety of industrial areas must install some water filtering system as well as cutting down emissions to the atmosphere.

In conclusion, there are some undesirable matters to the quality of life in a number of large cities, but, they can be tackled by many effective solutions.

Globalization has many positive effects on world’s economy but the negative effects of it cannot be forgotten. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

People have different views about the connection between globalization and the economy of every country of the world. While I accept that this trend of worldwide integration can sometimes have a harmful impact on the international economy, I believe that it is more likely to exert/create positive effects.

On the one hand, there are various reasons why people believe that the potential risks entailed by globalization upon the economy should not be undervalued. First of all, the widespread of global trade is not always beneficial to everyone, especially to developed countries. Companies can move from these nations to other areas where labor is considerably cheaper to exploit employees, and this may create redundancies or job losses. Furthermore, in underdeveloped countries, domestic businesses have to encounter a number of difficulties when they compete with several multinational companies. The workforce will be attracted to international firms/corporations because they may build new stores and office buildings, thus providing employees with modern surroundings that national businesses may not be able to offer.

On the other hand, I would argue that these drawbacks are outweighed by the benefits. Firstly, under pressure from globalization, trade has become more competitive which can lead to the production of higher quality products to capture the attention of consumers. When the old methods are outdated, companies have to upgrade so that they can enhance their own efficiency to compete with the multinationals. In addition, globalization can also create the improving working environment. For instance, many companies in the world market breeze through the economic competition with some positive changes and new policies that favor employees, such as providing daycare, holding company social events and offering flexible scheduling.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the beneficial impacts of global trade are more significant than their drawbacks.

It is important for all towns and cities to have large public spaces such as squares and parks. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

It is argued that public spaces such as squares and parks are necessary infrastructure for all cities. From my personal perspective, it is crucial to ensure such facilities available to the public in any region.

Firstly, urban citizens have to deal with busy and stressful lives nowadays. Moreover, noise pollution in cities is a serious problem, which will definitely lead to deterioration in people’s mental and physical health. By having large public spaces, people can improve their physical fitness, beginning with jogging and cycling every morning. Besides, a combination of a moment of quietness and a place of fresh air is useful for relaxation, which is a perfect escape from the hustling and bustling part of city life.

In addition, such public spaces also help people build strong relationships with their friends or families. For example, after a long and hard-working week, people usually spend time at parks chatting and camping with their loved ones. Furthermore, parks are places which many gatherings and celebrations take place. As a result, people will have countless opportunities to take part in diversified conversations and group physical activities. If this happens, people will be offered/provided with to form new relationships with people. Because of a similar interest, ideas can be easily spread and bonds can be smoothly formed among them. Finally, outdoor public spaces make a city or town happier and more liveable. As a matter of fact, all cities nowadays are in the lack of such public places. Governments frequently force the public to use the land for commercialization. They are not aware that/are not conscious of the fact that it is public space that cements every community and eventually molds the whole city into a healthy and strong organism.

To conclude, I do believe that governments should make greater investments in large public spaces.

Overpopulation in many major urban centers around the world is a major problem. What are the causes of this? How can this problem be solved?

It is widely argued that the incredible rise in population has negative impacts on the modern society. There are a number of reasons behind this point of view and several solutions should be proposed to change this difficult situation.

There are two primary reasons why more and more people start to move to big and popular cities. One reason is that urban environment offers a wide range of huge job opportunities which helps human earn a better living. Indeed, the higher pursuit of professions can hardly be followed in such rural areas due to the shortage of conditions and infrastructures. This may lead to the unfulfilment of life quality which constantly drives farmers and workers to immigrate to big towns. Another reason is the desire for enjoying better facilities and welfares which are only available in urban centers. For example, all children are expected to attend qualified schools or every citizen longs for being taken care in advanced and professional hospitals.

However, measures must be taken by the government and international bodies to solve this intricate problem and recreate a better society. Firstly, it should be one of the demanding jobs of authority to extend the area of cities and make efforts to develop and construct more buildings, hospitals as well as schools in the countrysides. This not only encourages people to move to other places to prosper but also decrease the chances of overpopulation in towns. Secondly, states ought to impose a strict limitation on the number of residents by discouraging each family to give birth more than two in urban areas. Thereby, the population will be tightly supervised and reduced significantly.

All in all, only by restricting the population of urban centers will the problem be resolved and the society becomes more orderly.

The movement of people from agricultural areas to cities to work can cause serious problems in both places. What are the serious problems and what measures can be taken to solve this problem?

In recent years, people tend to move from agricultural regions to cosmopolitans to look for job opportunities. Several problems have resulted from this tendency and they should be tackled by a number of solutions.

There are two major issues can be anticipated. Firstly, too many people living in cities can cause overcrowding and overpopulation which could put infrastructure of big cities such as hospitals, schools or public transport vehicle under high pressure and may lead to overloaded status. As a result, access to those resources could be limited, meaning that the quality of life of citizens will not be guaranteed. Besides, an increase in city population will result in the increased number of vehicles which can make the city become more polluted. Secondly, city migration could contribute to the depletion of farming due to the lack of agricultural labor force. As a result, agricultural land can be uninhibited and this will lead to the food shortage.

Since urbanization is a part of economic development, it seems impossible to stop this tendency and measures should be taken in order to control those problems. First, governments should encourage enterprises to invest in agricultural areas and use the local workforces. This will not only help to decrease the migration of people but also attract workers from big cities. Besides, improving essential infrastructure and providing better health care services to people in rural areas are also helpful in controlling urbanization.

 In conclusion, migration of people from agricultural areas to urban areas is a serious problem and solutions should be implemented urgently to overcome this issue.

Countries are becoming more and more similar because people are able to buy the same products anywhere in the world. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

Nowadays, due to the globalization as well as the development of import and export, many countries have resembled to each other because their citizens have opportunities to access to the commodities of many regions in the world. However, recently, this phenomenon has triggered a heated debate – as to whether this trend would be beneficial to countries themselves. In my opinion, I believe that this development is advantageous -because it would boost economy despite slight damage to the domestic market.

On the one hand, if many commodities from all over the world are imported into a country, its residents are able to approach and purchase high-quality products worldwide. To illustrate, it is some parts of the world such as the USA, Japan which excel at micro-technology, GMO foods and thus, along with the boom of transportation, these goods could be given to customers in developing countries. In addition, the universal access to international products is likely to optimize the cost-effective use of expensive products. More specifically, many products are bought from foreign countries but their components are from many parts of the world. As a result, if the market resembles due to similar goods, customers are capable of fixing and replacing the broken elements instead of buying new whole products.

On the other hand, this trend could influence adversely to the domestic market. As long as customers could approach cutting-edge products from developed countries, they have a tendency to ignore homegrown products because they usually pale in comparison with foreign commodities. However, this negative effects could be curbed provided that domestic companies and manufacturers are offered insights into modern technology with the help from the government and they are willing to adapt to the international development.

In conclusion, it seems to me that global combination could bring the best services for customers and promote the economy

Model 2

In the 21st century, there is an increasing similarity among nations around the world that is often attributed to the fact that products from international brands are available for purchase worldwide. While this pervasive trend can be beneficial in some ways, I believe that it can exert a variety of detrimental effects.

On the one hand, the process of globalization in which countries are being drawn together produces several advantages. Firstly, local residents are provided with a wide range of products and services at a more affordable price. As a result, there is the decline in consuming goods scarcity, which leads to the improvement of people’s standard of living. Secondly, the gradual elimination of national borders could help to lessen the challenges faced by people who move overseas for working or studying purposes. For example, the widespread availability of various types of products means that it would be uncomplicated for these individuals to access their favorite cuisines in their host countries, partly relieving their homesickness.

On the other hand, there are a number of reasons why I would argue that prevalence of multinational companies can generate negative impacts on various aspects of life. One of the primary concerns is that it may pose a potential threat to local companies which produce and promote domestic products. These highly sensitive small and medium businesses are strongly affected by the popularity of international brands. Furthermore, there is the possibility that cultural heritages and historical conventions would be lost in a flat world. These traditions are unique aspects of a country and should be conserved as well as handed down to other generations. If nations assemble each other, it is likely that their citizens’ sense of connection with their histories and cultures will weaken.

In conclusion, it seems to me the widespread presence of the same products in many parts of the world that causes countries to grow identical to each other create more drawbacks than benefits.

Overpopulation of urban areas has led to numerous problems. Identify one or two serious ones and suggest ways that governments and individuals can tackle these problems.

It is true that population explosion in urban areas has caused negative impacts to people’s lives and society. In this essay, I intend to propose some possible solutions to deal with it.

The Huge population in big cities has led to enormous troubles. First of all, infrastructure has been seriously overload causing congestion of the traffic during peak hours. As a result, transportation system which is the backbone of the economy has been impacted significantly. Secondly, public services, especially healthcare, have been always overcrowded. Thousands of patients cannot receive sufficient treatment, many of them have to wait for hours to be served and sleep in the corridors of hospitals.

However, I contend such problems could be tackled by the effort of both governments and individuals. The primary measure would be authority’s investment in transportation and services. Firstly, construction of new roads and bridges as well as metro lines must be accelerated to be operated. At the same time, the government should publish strict law to limit private vehicles and promote citizens using public transport. Secondly, new hospitals should be built up along with the deployment of qualified medical staffs in order to serve a large number of patients. The other tactics are to raise individuals’ awareness about traffic problems, they should minimize the use of personal vehicles and incline to travel by public transport simultaneously. Moreover, people might consider living in suburb areas instead of city center to deal with congested space.

In conclusion, the problems caused by overpopulation are extremely serious. However, the above-integrated solutions could be offered to overcome it.

The restoration of old buildings in major cities in the world costs numerous governments’ expenditures. This money should be used in new housing and road development. To what extent do you agree and disagree?

In recent years, governments have spent a great capital on solving housing problems and the improvement of the transport system. While I agree that these investments have brought a host of benefits to citizens, I believe that city planners should allocate an acceptable proportion of public expenditure to rehabilitating aged buildings.

There are various reasons why authorities should spend much money on restructuring old buildings. Firstly, it is important to recognize that many architectural styles have characterized cities, countries where they are located. In fact, it is common that a variety of old buildings which have unique and traditional values in architectural patterns have been integral parts, if not symbols of cities, countries. In other words, modern buildings, which only serve the fundamental function of providing shelters, cannot hold a candle to ancient buildings with cultural heritages in them given that they are created by time. As another reason, the existence of old buildings is of profoundly educational purpose. In certain countries/nations, some old buildings, which are not famous for outstanding design features, are well-known for their attachment/identity closely attached to either historical events or religious factors, playing a critical role in education. As witnesses, aged buildings reflect landmarks in the history or religion, which are irreplaceable, should be transmitted through the generations.

On the other hand, these days, the migration to metropolises has gained currency in many nations. Therefore, not only do governments face the need for housing but also deal with transport issue. As a result of the mentioned problems, the demolition of old buildings is reasonable and understandable. Singapore and Hong Kong are telling examples for this. In such countries, providing appropriate apartments and improving transport qualities are the most essential targets. Besides, old buildings which are under the poor condition, low quality and worthless should be knocked down to give spaces to the emergence of new ones with higher safety and greater economic values.

In conclusion, only when old constructions bear special values in terms of culture or history, should governments subsidize to maintain them. Otherwise, the urgent 109 issues as accommodation and transport development should be taken in priority.

More houses are needed in many countries to cope with increasing populations. Would it be better to build houses in existing towns and cities, or to develop new towns in rural areas?

There is a debate whether we should build houses in existing urban areas or create new towns in rural regions. While some people may think more places of residence in cities have a few advantages, I believe new towns in rural areas benefit a nation as a whole.

On the one hand, more buildings have some negative consequences on cities. More apartment units would reduce the price per unit and the renting cost, which will certainly encourage greater numbers of people to migrate to cities. In this way, urban areas have to cope with the greater level of overcrowding, both contributing to increasingly serious traffic congestion and overburdened public services such as healthcare, education. In addition, constructing new buildings requires space which is likely cleared by cutting down trees. This will lessen numbers of trees, which are vital in absorbing rainwater that falls on the grown, leading to flooding.

On the other hand, the new progress in rural areas is positive. As new towns develop, more companies are opened and the infrastructures are constructed in rural areas. This creates greater employment opportunities, which reduces numbers of people migrate to cities for economic purpose, and eventually lessens the migration burden on urban areas. A proper investment, which focuses on new areas such as niche manufacturer, tourism rather than traditional agriculture or resource-based businesses, could improve the socio-economy in rural regions. This benefits rural citizens and as well as the national economy.

For the reasons mentioned above, it seems to me that new towns constructed in rural areas bring greater positive effects than creating houses in urban areas.

Some people think that in the modern world we are more dependent on each other, while others think that people have become more independent. Discuss and give your own opinion.

It is widely argued in the modern society whether people depend less or more on others. I personally believe that we live more independently than ever.

There are two main reasons why people think that we have a tendency to rely on each other. Firstly, as life is complex and difficult, it is hard for individuals to live independently. In China, many young couples choose to stay with their parents after marriage because they cannot afford to buy a house as well as they can save money for a house rent to raise their offspring. Secondly, since people seem to be busier at work they need a lot of support from others. For instance, my brother and sister in law always have to work overtime; consequently/as a result, they cannot pick up my nieces on time at 5 pm. Thus, my father helps them to bring their kids home every day.

However, it seems to me that people nowadays have become more independent. Many people choose to settle down their lives far away from home. Therefore, they need to deal with all problems by their own. In America, normally after 18, the young leave their beloved house and start their independent life. As a result, they are free to pursue their interests and even travel around the world. Furthermore, thanks to the technological development, people now can work alone and from any place on Earth. With a laptop accessed to the Internet, we can easily hold a conference online. There would be no particular/considerable/compelling need for any secretary to set up meeting room or prepare any projector or stationary things.

In conclusion, while many people think that we are now relying more on others, I personally believe that we are now living more independently as a result of technology advances and the young generation’s new style life.

Many buildings are protected by laws because they are part of nation’s history. However, some people think old buildings should be knocked down to make way for new ones because people need houses and offices. How important is it to maintain old buildings? Should history stand in the way of progress?

Some people believe that old buildings should be replaced with apartments and new offices because history might interfere with the progress of the country. However, I strongly believe that it is of great importance to preserve such buildings as they not only represent the national identity but also carry a significant intrinsic value. On the one hand, there are a number of compelling reasons for protecting old buildings. Firstly, such antique buildings are attached with a great historic value that contributes tremendously to the national historic preservation. Secondly, without them, all the countries around the world would become identical, meaning that people would be assimilated due to the loss of their national identity and connection to their homeland. Finally, some old buildings also have valuable nature in terms of how they are constructed which worth millions of dollars. For example, some buildings of certain eras, namely pre-World War II, were often built with extremely high-quality materials such as hardwoods from the forests that are no longer exist.

On the other hand, contradictory to the common belief that history hinders the country’s development, protecting it can actually stimulate the national economic growth. In particular, numerous antique buildings used as tourist sites often bring an enormous income to the country. For instance, the Colosseum in Italy has attracted a vast number of international tourists every year, contributing greatly to its nation’s tourism industry. Consequently, history can accelerate the national progress significantly due to its economic benefits.

In conclusion, it is critical to protecting old buildings because of its tangible and intangible value, and I believe that history is not a deterrent to the country’s success.

Leave a Comment

close

Ad Blocker Detected!

Please disable the ad blocker for this website. >>open Chrome.>>>Go to easy-ielts.com>>>To the left of the web address, click Lock or Info .>>>To the right of "Ads," click the Arrows . >>>Choose Always allow on this site.>>>Reload the webpage.

Refresh