Task 2 Essay Sample: Socio-Political

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 believe that people have the right to university education, and government should make it free no matter what their financial background. To what extent do you agree or disagree.

Not everyone is born with the good condition, however, everyone has the right to access to university education. Therefore, some people believe that government has the responsibility in offering its citizens free study program. Meanwhile, the others suggest that university should not be free to anyone.

On the one hand, the government should provide support to every person who has a desire to the university by carrying out a no-tuition fee program. Firstly, people have equal right to receive an adequate education environment. As a result, people from all walks of life can sit in the same class at the university, which narrows down the rich-poor gap. Secondly, human resource is a key factor in the wellbeing of a country. Therefore, the national budget should be allocated to make university free so that unveiled talents can study and contribute to the country in the future.

On the other hand, the government should only provide financial university aid to the poor people. The first reason to apply tuition fee on available people is that it is one of the most effective ways to stimulate people to determine in studying. With the presence of an affordable amount of money for the university, people will be more serious in their studying because they need to have responsibility for their money. Moreover, tuition fee can help the university to pay for infrastructure’s cost and enhance teaching quality.

In conclusion, although studying is an equal right to everyone, the government should support only some people who are poor but serious in learning. Only by doing so can the university truly becomes equal to everyone.

Model 2

It is argued that people have universal right to free university education. While I am skeptical of this idea, I would agree that people from low-income backgrounds should not be charged for higher education.

On the one hand, I believe that free access to university should not be a right for everyone. Firstly, in practical terms, governments cannot pay tuition fees for the rich as well as the poor as attendance at the university is a privilege, not a right, and this strategy will put enormous pressure on them. Governments are faced with challenges of how to allocate their budgets, and funding free higher education for everyone would mean less money for pressing issues such as the environment. Secondly, this approach will definitely increase the number of people pursuing academic study at university, which means fewer people will take vocational courses. Thus, the current shortage of manual workers will be even more serious.

However, the privilege of receiving university education for free should be given to people from poor financial backgrounds. Without such funding, people from poorer sections, with low incomes and no savings would be unable to attend university. As a consequence, they would be excluded from many well-paid careers as engineers, doctors or lawyers. Social inequalities would be perpetuated since those from low-income backgrounds would have no opportunity to develop their talents. Moreover, funding higher education for a number of students with difficult circumstances would certainly be within government’s capacity.

To conclude, I disagree that free university education should be a right for everyone in society, and funding should be limited to those who otherwise could not afford to attend university.

In many countries, governments are spending a large amount of money on improving internet access. Why is it happening and do you think it is the most appropriate use of government money?

It is true that a wide amount of public money is growingly invested in developing the Internet in some nations. There are different reasons identified for this trend and I consider that public funding should be spent on more urgent priorities.

The main reason for this trend toward expanding Internet access in various countries is that citizens are able to access resources of information available effectively at any time, meaning that they can have an opportunity to broaden their horizons through reading newspapers online or searching information on the Internet. In addition, the Internet always offers opening access to those people is willing to learn regales of age, location, and background. Another reason is that the Internet helps to enhance the growth of the economy. Online sale becomes more common these days, hence, improving Internet access helps to boost the domestic as well as international trade. In fact, the Internet enables/allows us to save our time and is convenient for us due to written forms of communication because the Internet allows people to discuss online through Email, Facebook or other social media.

Although the Internet brings benefits to us, I believe that more pressing issues need to be invested with government financial assistance. Firstly, the government should spend the public budget on the education system and healthcare service. For example, some schools in developing countries require more schools with capable teachers and administers. Secondly, the national security is also a rewarding concern. More money is used for police and security service to increase the safety of all citizens.

In conclusion, although there are sound reasons why public authorities should want to invest in improving internet access, I consider that there are more important problems which demand government funding.

Nowadays more and more young people hold the important positions in the government. Some people think that is a good thing while others argue that it is not suitable. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Nowadays, young people are emerging as important resources of leadership for the government. While some people think they might are incompatible, I would argue that this trend can be a good/fresh initiative.

On the one hand, this trend may bring about/result in/ lead to some notable drawbacks. The main issue is that it is really hard for young leaders to influence their older employees as well as replace important positions by those young people due to the tradition of respecting for an old generation in some countries. Another problem is that there is a big/major gap in experience between young and old generation/candidates. While old leaders have faced many challenged along their career, young leaders can easily make mistakes, stemming mostly from the lack of practical experiences and the incapability of decision making.

On the other hand, allowing young people to hold important vacancies can be advantageous for some reasons. Firstly, young leaders often have an enormous passion which is very crucial for the work. Their different thinking and creativity are also essential for changing unfashionable/conventional processes that are often working unproductively in the past. Secondly, young leaders have a long time working ahead which contributes to a great advantage compared to older counterparts. For example, old generation might be persistent under strong pressure or suffer from fewer health problems that prevent them from working productively.

In conclusion, although there are strong arguments for both views, it seems to me that on the whole, it is beneficial that more young people are being selected to play some key roles in the government.

Should Government be responsible for providing pure drinking water to all or should the people obtain their own water?

Water is life. Purity of it may sustain and impurity may perish all. In that all consuming concept, it is necessary, and, it is commonly said that all necessities should be provided by the government. While such popular opinion is ideally justifiable, I believe that, with the exception of those of desert and disaster areas, governments should not be burdened with the duty of providing drinking water, as it can very easily be done by individuals in most areas.

Speaking generally, modern society has progressed far enough not to consider thirst as a threat. We get bottled water delivered to our doors in many places. And tap water is clean enough to just boil at home and drink. Small servings of drinking water are also cheaply bought at convenience stores almost anywhere. In terms of Bangladesh, for example, water is one of the cheapest of all home utilities.

So, now, water is no problem! There are of course those areas where all provisions for sustenance are scarce, may be due to war or other disasters, natural or not. Those cases must be held as exceptions, which they really are, and call for government sponsored supply of all general means for living, e.g. food, shelter, education, clothing, pure drinking water, even portable air conditioners, like often are supplied in USA and some wealthy middle eastern countries. So as said, there are exceptionalities, and they should not be used to argue against rationale, that is, distributing drinking water in times of peace is too trivial a matter for the government, or a bureau of it, to be occupied with.

 We can, therefore, conclude that drinking water, in the contemporary perspective, is available enough to be left as responsibility on the shoulder of the governed, not the government, except the situations that go beyond all generalities.

Due to so many young people dropping out from school, rate of unemployment is going up and it affects our society in different ways. In your opinion, how can this situation be improved?

It has long been noticed worldwide that young people, at the age of being in academic schooling, often drop out, sometimes to get involved in wage earning, other times for reasons not so fruitful. The blame is not of the context here. But the effect, which is relevant to this discussion, is most often perilous to society. Such a situation should, and can, be improved by training, employing and re-schooling those disarrayed young.

Firstly, Government should take steps to train the out of school juveniles in skills that can easily be utilized in industrial or farming environment. That way the “drop-outs” will contribute to their own and country’s development and not become menaces to their society. Secondly, public and private enterprises should take concerted measures to embed the unschooled youths in the national, even international, workforce. Everybody, regardless of his or her academic rapport, must be good for something, ranging from clerical desk jobs to technical handy work.

But, most importantly, in my opinion, the “dropped-out” juveniles must be given opportunities to get back on track. This may include free to access entrance exams in to different levels of institutional education. In the United States, the GED examinations offer high school drop-outs, beyond the age of 17, entrance in to university, basing on their aptitude scores in the GED, disregarding their otherwise track record. Even prison inmates there get this opportunity. A young person dropping out of school is a big enough tragedy in itself, considering the untimely loss of a potential scholar. But this tragedy turns in to being the horror of all lest steps are not taken to rehabilitate this youth.

We may, therefore, conclude here that the only way of improving the situation created by high school drop outs is practical rehabilitation by industry and sympathetic consideration by institutions.


Countries with a long average working time are more economically successful than those countries which do not have a long working time. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Many people believe that a long average working time is directly tied to a nation’s economic prosperity. While I accept that extending average time at workplaces may be beneficial to some extent, I would argue that countries with proper working time may stand a higher chance of obtaining healthier economy. To begin with, there are a variety of reasons given to justify the benefits of long average working hours towards the economy. Firstly, staff who stay at companies/ workplaces for a longer time to accomplish their work can accelerate the working process, which allows firms/ enterprises to make greater profits to expand the business as well as reinvest in feasible projects. This may significantly contribute to the sustainable growth/ development of the economy. Secondly, not only can this policy encourage workers to make diligent supports but also shape an urgent working style at workplaces. As a result, firms can utilize their employees’ abilities for the sake of profit.

However, there are more compelling reasons for me to contend that nations which allow more spare time may boost the stronger economy. First, when employees are encouraged to leave workplaces earlier, they would have more chances to spend time on recreational activities. For example, they may play sports or read books after days of working intensively to recharge the battery. Thus, this policy can cultivate workers’ job satisfaction as well as enhance their mental health, which enables them to works more effectively and foster creativity. This would result in better working performances, making it possible for more qualified products to be manufactured. Additionally, shorter working time means a lower level of salaries and bonus, which helps employers to save a great amount of business cost. If individuals are forced to work 15 hours a day, companies would have to allocate a huge amount of money to pay for their better productivity.

In conclusion, while I suppose higher working intensity might be economically advantageous, I am strong of the opinion that shorter working duration would be more beneficial for the economic development.

In a global economy, many goods, including what we use on a daily basis, are transported to other counties in a long distance. To what extent do you think its benefits exceed its drawbacks?

In these days, living in a modernization and globalization society makes it easy for people to buy what they need. Although this trend may bring several downsides for using foreign products. The return is highly justifiable.

On the one hand, there are some drawbacks for the utility of exported goods. The first bad point is that the newer merchandises appear in other markets, the more attractive they are. As a result, there is a major pressure for local business, leading to series of problems such as unemployment rate as well as social evil or social crimes. Additionally, experiencing a faraway transport has resulted in an increase in both pollutions due to a big expenditure on fuel and traffic jams. However, I would argue that these negative effects are outweighed by their merits. The prominent positive side is that the more competitive the market is, the lower the goods’ prices are.

Consequently, consumers are given the most benefit by using foreign things with better quality in reasonable payment to meet their basic demands. For example, the majority of Vietnamese inhabitants are likely to choose eye-catching Chinese clothes, costing lower compared with local materials. Furthermore, standing in a highly competitive environment, the only way to survive for local businesses is encouraging creativity to improve the quality of their products. Consequently, the latest technology and more efficient methods are must be used in both manufacture and management, leading to developing the host country.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the potential advantages of enjoying exported goods from afar community are more significant than the opposite sides.

Some people think international cooperation has brought benefits to world environmental protection, while others believe more benefits have been brought to the international business. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

People have different views about positive effects of global collaboration trend around the world. Although there are good arguments in favour of environmental merits from this tendency, I personally believe that economic profits are more prominent.

On the one hand, it can be argued that current international combination brings several positive influences on the world’s environment. Firstly, the number of nations being able to produce renewable energy is expanded by the assistance of developed countries to developing ones. A group of top nations such as Japan, America or European union not only transfer technology to developing ones to produce more environmentally friendly sources of energy, but also give them financial sponsors to encourage protecting surrounding conditions from global warming or increasing carbon emission. Secondly, there is a variety of global campaigns for recovering biodiversity to avoid both natural and artificial disasters such as floods or droughts.

In my opinion, good aspects from this globalization trend are more significant. The dominant advantage is that economic status of some nations has changed remarkably after taking part in the international system. For example, starting from the top of the poorest countries, Vietnamese Gross Domestic Product has increased remarkably after becoming an open economy, helping our nation leave the lowest group. The average income is rising tremendously resorting to the highest payment in foreign companies. Additionally, in the international community, high- technological products are more popular, providing to more efficient in both manufacture and management. Besides, a huge volume of taxes from various modern industrial areas or financial office buildings extends national revenues, improving the prime economic position.

In conclusion, both arguments have their values. On balance, I tend to believe that economic benefits are the leading side in globalization society.

It is better to save money than to spend it. How far do you agree with this statement? Is saving more important than spending in today’s world?

People have different views about whether saving money is more important than spending money in today’s world. While money savings are essential for future plans, I believe that spending money reasonably is also very important in the current world.

On the one hand, savings accounts can be a great source of income for people’s lives in the future or in some emergency circumstances. If people save money regularly when they are working, they can retire happily with this source of savings or the can prepare themselves for some risky situations that can occur anytime in our lives such as falling sick or suffering diseases or accident. As a result, there is no financial burden to a family in those cases. Therefore, it can be said that saving money is extremely essential for rainy days when we may lose our regular income.

On the other hand, it is even more important to spend money to maintain our lives, especially to cover all necessities of life such as food, rental, clothes, and education. In addition, because of unpredictable future, people should live for the present by spending money to fulfill their needs and to enjoy their current lives. As long as we do not waste our money, our consumption is not only a good way to satisfy ourselves but also to boost economic development. More demands on all kinds of products including tangible goods or services will create more jobs in the society. This is a positive signal of the economy, which should be promoted.

In conclusions, I can understand why people might want to save more than to spend in today’s world, it seems to me that spending money is equally important and benefits not only ourselves but also contribute to the development of the society.

Some people believe that developing countries should concentrate on improving industrial skills whereas others argue that these countries should promote education first. Discuss both viewpoints and give your own opinion.

People have different views about whether developing countries should focus on enhancing industrial skills or education. While there are some benefits of improving working skills, I would argue that education should be the top priority of these nations.

There are several reasons why vocational skills should be improved. Firstly, since developing countries often lack workers with specialized ability, the governments of these countries should invest more in training and enhancing working skills to provide sufficient workforce. For example, In Vietnam, there is too many white-collar persons and too few blue-collar workers, so it is not possible for the manufacturing industry in Vietnam to develop. Secondly, when workers’ practical skills are improved, the productivity of factories would be enhanced. As a result, more goods with higher qualities would be produced, which generates more money for the whole nation.

However, I believe that promoting education would lead to a more stable growth for developing countries. The first reason is that since education provides basic knowledge for people, it is likely to assist in the development of other industries. For instance, education can help scientists to come up with new technologies, which allows workers to produce modern devices such as smartphones. The second benefit of improving the education system is that this would nurture good citizens. Being well educated, people would be more likely to behave properly such as obeying the law, and this contributes to the development of the entire society. If inadequate attention is paid to education, the growth of countries will only be short-term.

In conclusion, I think developing countries should concentrate more on enhancing education because it will bring about stable and long-term developments.

Some people think that governments should give financial support to creative artists such as painters and musicians. Others believe that creative artists should be funded by alternative sources. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

There is widespread belief that creative artists should be provided income by the governments whereas others think that the fund should come from different sponsors. While people who work in artistic fields should be taken into careful consideration by the authorities for their devotion, it seems to me that they should raise their own budgets from other sources and people who are interested in their work/works.

On the one hand, it is undeniable that artists are true workers who create a great and colorful aspect to society. Wonderful masterpieces always require painters and musicians to dedicate their time, effort as well as talent to complete/finish hence bringing joy to life. In addition, the results can even raise the productivity and quality in work and in life. Therefore, governments should financially support creative artists as a motivation for developing their career.

On the other hand, I believe that it is a better idea to encourage artists to find their own sponsors and collectors. There are many financial issues for the government to deal with and the national budget is usually limited so they must place a high priority on those problems instead of supporting artists. As the result, artists should acknowledge the situation and ask for financial aid from other sources such as individuals or organizations that have the actual interest in their work and are willing to help them to pursue the passion.

In conclusion, there are good reasons why creative artists should be funded by the government, but in my opinion, they should look for different sponsorships on their own for the benefits of the community.

Many people believe that scientific researches should be carried out and controlled by the governments rather than private companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There are differing views about whether the government or private organizations/ enterprises/businesses should be mainly responsible for conducting scientific experiments. Although some people suppose that these researches would be done more effectively under the control of certain individuals or groups, I would argue that government is the better choice for this position.

On the one hand, I understand those who are in favor of private companies for running scientific studies. Firstly, it is evident that the entrepreneurs are likely willing to pour a large amount of money compared to the limited state source in experiments which can bring about the financial potential for them. This, in turns, leads to more investments in improving or developing modern equipment to facilitate these researches in a much faster way, increasing the chance of success. For example, many pharmaceutical companies have well-funded for experiments to discover new kinds of drugs which can cure dangerous or even fatal disease for the sake of profit from exclusively possessing these inventions.

On the other hand, I believe that performing scientific studies can guarantee its original aims which serve for the benefits of humankind, but any particular groups. For long-term programs concerning social issues such as preserving the balanced ecosystem or wildlife from a man-made intervention which has no monetary incentives to draw private funders, the government plays an important role in financially supporting them. Additionally, it is indisputable that studies in nuclear technology or weapons for national defense can be highly considered as confidential data which may pose a serious threat to the security of a country or even on a global scale as possessed by companies with the sole aim of maximizing profit.

In conclusion, despite positive influences of private supports, I am convinced that scientific studies would be more meaningful as when being managed by authorities.

Rich countries should not employ skilled labor from poor countries, as poor countries need the workers more. Do you agree or disagree? It is widely argued that skilled workers in underdeveloped nations should contribute to their home countries instead of being hired to work for developed countries.

While developing countries certainly demand a great amount of manpower, I believe that the movement of the labour force from these countries to developed ones offers various advantages.

On the one hand, there are a number of reasons why some people oppose to moving skilled workers to prosperous countries. One of the primary causes is that a considerable number of challenges have been emerging in Third World countries that require the contribution of their skilled workers. High-quality manpower is unquestionably necessary/vital/significant/important to solve social issues in these nations, such as outdated technology or the ineffective management of governmental and economic bodies. Furthermore, if rich countries continuously attract skilled labor from poverty-stricken areas, it will cause the brain drain phenomenon, leading to the broadening of development gap on the global scale.

On the other hand, there are undoubtedly more suitable job vacancies for skilled labor in developed countries. A good example is that numerous scientists, researchers, and technicians in developing countries opt for settling in countries with technological advancements as they concern that their professions would have little demand in their home countries. In addition, when these elite class members obtain innovative ideas or technological progress from other countries, they can make use significantly of their knowledge when returning to their homeland, and partly contribute to the sustainable development of their nations.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the equal distribution of skilled labor in both developed and developing countries would be beneficial for all sides.

Some people think governments should protect local companies when they compete with international companies. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

It is widely argued that there are more advantages for domestic enterprises that are protected by their own government when they compete with global companies. In my opinion, this is more drawbacks than benefits.

On the one hand, it is undeniable that protecting local companies is beneficial in some cases. To be specific, companies that are supported by governments enable manufacturing products to supply not only domestic markets but also foreign markets. This results in higher profits which may be generated by local companies. As a result, they pay more taxes for national budgets. Furthermore, protecting domestic companies is a wise strategy to prevent multinational companies from building their factories in underdeveloped countries. This is because multinational companies can take advantages of local resources for producing with extremely low costs. This leads to the environmental degradation for a long time.

On the other hand, I concur with those who argue that this tendency brings more downsides for domestic citizens. Firstly, local consumers suffer from unfair competition between enterprises inside and outside their country. They have to pay higher prices or receive lower qualities for the products for the products that are produced by local companies. For instance, the price of cars that are manufactured by Vietnamese companies is extremely expensive which is nearly the same price with a private house in Vietnam and is out of reach for people on the average salary. Secondly, international companies help unemployment rate in local areas to drop significantly. If their factories operate, the demand for local labor will increase substantially.

In conclusion, I believe that there are more drawbacks than benefits for protecting local companies in globalization context.

Many governments think that economic progress is their most important goal. Some people, however, think that other types of progress are equally important for a country. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

The development of a country depends on the contribution of many indicators. While some governments believe that economic progress is an important factor to measure the nation’s success, others assert that, apart from economic, there are several factors that should be advanced and considered such as education and healthcare.

On the one hand, there are several reasons why governments think economics is the most considerable aspect as the most crucial goal. In fact, with the strategy focusing on generating profits, some companies will try to reduce unnecessary steps in the manufacturing process or increase employee’s performance in order to maximize the earned revenue. As a result, employees are likely to earn higher salaries which contribute to the better living standard. Moreover, the prosperous economy also helps to attract more potential foreign investors with a huge budget. Thanks to the investment sources from developed countries, many start-ups projects can run smoothly with high possibility of success. Therefore, many job vacancies will be created and the rate of unemployment will be reduced.

On the other hand, the standards of education, health, and human rights should equally be considered when setting a nation’s target of development. Firstly, the government should concentrate on health care services rather than the pressure of monetary. Apparently, in the period of industrialization, the environment is being harmed by air pollution and waste which result in gas emission from factories. Consequently, people are likely to be suffering from some fatal ailments such as cancer. Secondly, the government also need to focus on Education because welleducated workforce allows a variety companies and industries to flourish, leading to trade with other countries and increased wealth.

In conclusion, there are many factors contribute to the common development of the nation and I would argue that government should care those listed indicators equally.

Model 2

While wealth has become the first propriety of many nations, a lot of people argue that there are several factors also contribute to a nation’s prime as much as economics. In my opinion, I believe that both economic advantages and other nonprofit values are essential and state’s policies should be able to balance them.

There are a great number of benefits of being a rich country. The wealth of a nation is presented in two factors: the state budget and the citizens’ personal income, so let looking at these two. Firstly, the growth of the government budget revenue could bring about a better social welfare, because more money would be allocated to public services. For instance, traffic infrastructure would be updated so that people could move more easily and safely. Secondly, if one’s financial situation gets progresses, he will spend more money on consuming in order to meet his needs and feel happier. Vietnam, for example, as long as its economic development, has turned from a country full of hungers to the top ten happiest nation in the world.

However, economics is not the only thing essential for a society. Some scientists claimed that although ‘money can buy happiness’is true, it is only true to some extent. Specifying, there is a point that even if a person gets more money than that, he/she will not feel better, maybe even get stress or anxiety. Whereas, there is no limit for other delighting factors, such as relaxing environment or relationship’s harmony. In fact, they play integral parts contributing people’s health, both mentally and physically, sometimes could be more precious than money. Buhtan and Korea are good illustrations. The King of Bhutan decided to take economics’ propriety behind preserving the environment, education, and health service, and to measure the amount of delightfulness instead of GDP. The result is his civilians become the happiest people. Korea, in contrast, had experienced phenomenal growth and now is one of ‘four Asian Tigers’, but for some reasons, it also has a great proportion of people committing suicide.


The development of a country depends on the contribution of many indicators. While governments believe that economic progress is an/the most important factor to measure the nation’s success, others assert that, apart from the economy, there are several factors that should be advanced and considered such as education and healthcare.

On the one hand, there are several reasons why governments think the economy is the most considerable aspect as well as the most crucial goal. In fact, with the strategy focusing on generating profits, some companies will try to reduce unnecessary steps in the manufacturing process or increase employee’s performance in order to maximize the earned revenue. As a result, employees are likely to earn a higher salary which contributes to better living standard. Moreover, the prosperous economy also helps to attract more potential foreign investors with a huge budget. Thanks to the investment sources from developed countries, many start-ups projects can run smoothly with high possibility of success. Therefore, many job vacancies will be created and the rate of unemployment will be reduced.

On the other hand, the standards of education, health, and human rights should equally be considered when setting a nation’s target of development. Firstly, governments should prioritize their plan/time/effort on the progress of healthcare services rather than the pressure of monetary. Apparently, in the period/era of industrialization, the environment has been harmed/damaged by air pollution and waste which result from gas emission from factories. Consequently, people are likely to be suffering from some fatal ailments such as cancer. Secondly, governments also need to focus on Education because well-educated workforce allows a variety of companies and industries to flourish, leading to trade with other countries and increased wealth.

In conclusion, there are many factors which contribute to the common development/progress/blossoming of a nation and I would argue that governments should care about those listed indicators equally

In a number of countries, some people think that it is necessary to spend a large sum of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between the cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

In many countries, people argue about how governments should utilize their budgets on transportation areas. Some people think that governments should invest a huge amount of money for construction of new railway lines for express trains between the cities, while others believe that improving existing public transport is more important. In my opinion, governments should proportionally allocate their budgets for both projects as both of them are equally important to the development and advancement of the countries’ economy and people’s lives.

On the one hand, it is understandable if some people think that people should expand express railways between the cities rather than existing public transport. Firstly, it is obvious that when a country has extensive fast train networks connecting its cities, it will positively affect logistic costs as well as dramatically reduce delivery times and as a result, the price of many products would be much cheaper. Secondly, the number of passengers travel nationwide will increase significantly due to the convenience of these fast and safe transportation systems. These factors will help to boost the development of the nations, in term of both economy and tourism. Finally, the development gaps between the cities will also be narrowed as many manufacturers may relocate their factories to satellite cities in order to utilize cheap labour and land costs. Hence, express railways will be the future of transportation and investment in it is the better choice of any government.

On the other hand, other people believe that it is important to improve and maintain the existing public transport. With the governments’ investment into the mass transportation facilities, many outstanding issues could be successfully solved. For example, traffic jams will be reduced, resulting in people spend less time and cost for transportation. In addition, as the public transportation system becomes more convenient and safer, it will encourage more people to use these means of transportation and will gradually reduce the number of private cars. As a consequence, it will reduce traffic congestion and air pollution as well.

In conclusion, I personally believe that the governments’ spending on high-speed railway networks and existing public transport are both essential to the development of the nations and the enhancement of people’s lives. Without one another, these development and enhancement will be incomplete.

Model 2

In recent years, people have argued that whether the government should dedicate to construct more trains and subway lines or upgrade roads in order to improve traffic congestion. While both ideas are encouraged to expectedly better, this essay is going to support the second one.

On the one hand, public transport has been widely believed to reduce traffic problems. Thus train and subway are not the exceptions. Firstly, people have the opportunities to take its advantages to control commutation system, even during rush hours. Secondly, no matter how much money we can earn, it is considered affordable for people to buy tickets to commute to such distant places. Addiction to saving money, reduction of fuel sources is also allocated to this improvement, in comparison to private vehicles. Therefore, not only citizens but also the government is able to save their budget to deal with other issues in the society.

Looking from the other angle, vehicles traveled on residential streets is believed to be more significant to commute to demanding places which public transports cannot reach to. Although going by train or subway is sometimes economical, yet we waste a lot of time traveling due to the dependence on their schedules. In retrospect, by widening the roads and enhance its infrastructure, it is not necessary for people to barge in the sea of traffic congestion. Apart from that, piles-ups trouble may also be reduced or eliminated.

In conclusion, improving the road quality is better to reduce the amount of traffic congestion. Personally thinking, it is encouraged that the government should draw attention to explore various kinds of environment-friendly means to reduce the amount of traffic pollution on streets.

It is impossible to all help people in the world, so governments should only focus on people in their own countries. Do you agree or disagree?

There is a widespread belief that governments should take care of citizens who live in their own country rather than the needy people in other countries since it is impossible to help all people around the world. I completely disagree with this opinion.

Firstly, thanks to advances in technology, every country could provide international aids easily and quickly. It is true that the modern means of transportation nowadays could deliver global assistance to even the most remote areas in the world. Therefore, the provision of assistance for residents of all countries is not an impossible task anymore. For example, the immediate assistance of many nations saved thousands of Thai people from homelessness and starvation as a result of the devastating tsunami in 2008.

Secondly, the governments of nations should give priority to allocating more resources to support the global community as serious problems happen. This is due to the fact that assisting citizens living in other countries is synonymous with saving people in the home country. A good case in this point is in 2014, the US and the UK sent hundreds of doctors and nurses to African countries to cope with the outbreak of Ebola. As a result, this charitable action not only saved many African citizens from a dreadful plague but also prevented the further spreading of Ebola to other nations.

In conclusion, with what I have mentioned above, I strongly believe that besides focusing on the well-being of their people, governments need to have global responsibilities since helping other nations also means helping the residents living in their own countries.


There have been different opinions on whether the government in prosperous countries should allocate more funds for international or domestic assistance. Although I understand that why helping all citizens in the world is unachievable, I completely disagree that government should solely concentrate on local needs.

On the one hand, there are various reasons which are attributable to the impossibility of providing bailouts to all inhabitants worldwide. By the time of economic crisis, poor tax revenue and falling productivity have hampered government of wealthier countries’ attempt to balance their international aid fund. As a result, the tight budget would lead to the failure in meeting all needs of the impoverished and advantaged around the world. Furthermore, the government should prioritize the well-being of their citizens and stabilize their economy and politics. For example, numerous suburbs in France have drawn attention to violent riots causing by the poor and young men from a migrant family. Instead of enhancing global assistance, France’s government should place more emphasis on tackling the problems from its root through numerous new subsidy schemes.

On the other hand, other developed countries should assume responsibilities on providing aid/ financial assistance to the underdeveloped/ underprivileged countries. Numerous life-threatening diseases like AIDS, malaria has killed over 6 million people worldwide per year, which most of them come from poor countries with unlimited sources. The reason is that their public health system is unaffordable either to treat such illness or even operate prevention system, which calls for the involvement of more affluent countries. This would lead to promoting the sense of humanity, which is essential for the sustainable development of the world.

 In conclusion, I am of the opinion that although helping all citizens in the world is unattainable, wealthy countries should lend poor countries a hand to offer international aids to people in needs on their doorstep.

In some countries, the governments encourage industries and businesses to move out from large cities to regional areas. Do you think that the advantages outweigh disadvantages?

Decentralization of industries and businesses out of city centers has been encouraged by the government in some countries. Despite raising concern on low development in infrastructure in suburban areas, the benefits of utilizing low land cost and reducing air pollution far outweigh any drawbacks.

Main concerns of relocation to suburban are the low development in infrastructure and the increase in transportation and communication cost. Firstly, infrastructure such as sewage, water, and electricity system is not as developed or stable as those in the city center, creating regular power cut-off, communication breakdown, which would, in turn, increase the production cost. Secondly, if other suppliers and business-related partners are still located in the city center, the transportation cost ought to be increased due to the long distance of travel and limitation on highways and roads. For instance, a report conducted by Beijing government in 2010 shows that low development in infrastructure for manufacturing had increased the cost of production by 20%. Knowing the impact of these problems, the government ought to give tax redemption and major subsidies to encourage the relocation.

The primary benefit of relocation is taking the pressure off high pollution (level) from the city center. In other words, the presence of factories in the city center contributes significantly to the air pollution through it carbon dioxide and waste emission, threatening the health of citizens. In 2005, General Health Institution in Beijing conducted a study and it reveals that more than 300,000 of people die each year from air pollution alone. It comes from the fact that many mass produced factories of cellphones and electronics had increased the number of metals in the environment, causing toxic to living in soil, animals, and humans. Carbon dioxide, particles, and heavier metals are released into the environment and they are very detrimental to the health of citizens.

Therefore, the relocation ought to be carried out in order to alleviate these problems. In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the benefits of relocating industrial companies in reducing air pollution outweigh its disadvantages.

The government should invest more money in teaching science than in other subjects for a country development and progress. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The importance of science and technology in national progress has long been recognized, so it is said that government funding for education should give preference to science-based subjects over others. Personally, I disagree with this opinion because of non-science subjects’ distinct impacts.

Advances in science have been fundamentally altering the way people live, work and communicate, which bring about some profound effects on economic growth. The advent of computers and the Internet, for example, has empowered individuals and businesses to access knowledge and markets, to communicate and transact regardless of geographic distance. In addition, robotics and machine learning can now serve as substitutes in lots of activities with greater efficiency and higher productivity. Another benefit that modern science has provided is the development of renewable energy. Sources of renewable/alternative energy such as solar and nuclear power begin to help ease nation’s reliance on oil and fossil fuels.

However, the process of a country’s development is not only based on science education and advancement since the prosperity of a country calls for talents from a wide range of fields. It is known that in parallel with the operation of applying science and technology in socio-economic development, many problems such as pollution, crime, and diseases have surged. Therefore, a country needs scientific experts as well as those in many other fields to make its progressing path smoother and safer. For example, scientists play an integral part in combating climate change as they are counted for finding out causes and corresponding effects of this issue. However, in order to solve this problem, authors and activists are required to improve social awareness at the same time.

In conclusion, although a nation without science and technology is definitely a backward one, science only/alone cannot bring growth and well-being for a country. Instead, I do believe a nation’s sustainable development would require a well-rounded education with an emphasis on all disciplines.

Multinational companies are becoming increasingly common in developing countries. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?

Multinational enterprises have been increasingly popular in today’s business world. It is claimed that these enterprises provide plenty of opportunities for host countries; simultaneously, they are also pregnant with certain drawbacks for local businesses and the environment. The activities of transitional corporations can create a significant economic boost for less developed nations. Firstly, thanks to projects concerning the construction of factories and infrastructure, more jobs and trainings for local people are created. Secondly, due to their activities, these corporations help other nations improve economic governance as well as broaden export and import, which enables them to gain further integration into global economy. From the international perspective, the activities of transnational companies also contribute to hunger eradication and poverty alleviation in developing countries. Additionally, the local industry can get access to higher technology from foreign countries through transitional companies, which helps improve its technological parameter.

On the other hand, multinational enterprises obviously have negative impacts on the local community. First, the jobs that they create are not permanent because these enterprises could relocate to another country, which is caused by management barriers in the host nation. Second, in developing economies, large multinational companies can have greater competitive advantages than local firms which may lead to the latter becoming broke. Last but not least, in order to maximize profits, transitional corporations often contribute to pollution in the local areas, which puts the environment under threat.

To summarize, despite the inevitable negative impacts when setting up business in other nations, transitional enterprises are evidently appealing to and are welcomed by the nations provided that their practices also respond to their social responsibilities apart from making money.

It is more important for the government to spend public funds on promoting a healthy lifestyle than treatment. Do you agree or disagree?

One school of thought is that instead of budgeting to cure illnesses, the government should focus financial resources on shaping a healthy lifestyle among citizens to prevent health issues. From my perspective, I object to this idea because both treatment and prevention are equally important.

On the one hand, further investment in simulate physical activities and eradicating alcohol addiction is crucial to reduce the potential threat of serious ailments. First and foremost, the world has been witnessing an increasing number of cases of obesity and heart diseases which are allegedly under the influence of sedentary lifestyle. Therefore, it is necessary for authorities to construct more communal facilities such as public playgrounds and gardens with the aim to encourage people to attend outdoor activities. Furthermore, it goes without saying that the popular habit of drinking beer or wine, in Vietnam for example, is the culprit of a myriad of traffic accidents and cancers. The Vietnamese government, hence, has to grant extra fundings to education campaigns to change people’s perception of drinking culture and tightening management of consumption of alcoholic liquor.

On the other hand, an equal concentration of money is essentially required to build extra medical infrastructure and research for more advanced medication. To commence with, apart from diseases associated with the unhealthy style of living, human beings are afflicted with innate disorders, natural epidemics like H5N1 or Ebola, and accidental injuries. To be equally important, thousands of people have been diagnosed with not only the century illness namely AIDS but also many kinds of cancers which have no or little effective remedies. By virtue of that, only with a significant amount of money spent on improving healthcare service; establishing hospitals and clinics; and discovering new cures can the government provide more medical access to patients and guarantee the well-being of human society.

By way of conclusion, owing to the aforementioned arguments, I am of the opinion that government should allocate equal money to both cures and encourage a healthy lifestyle.

Some people think that the government should spend more money on public services rather than waste money on arts [i.e music and painting]. To what extent do you agree or disagree.

It is true that government expenditure on public services should be high on its agenda rather than spending money on art. While I accept that this opinion may suit many people, I would argue that the government should also allocate budget on developing arts such as music and painting.

On the one hand, there are a variety of reasons why the government should focus on public services. Firstly, though public transport systems play a crucial role in our daily life, it has received inadequate investment from local and national authorities. As a result, traffic congestion has become one of the most pressing problems in big cities in the world, which causes environmental deterioration and numerous health diseases for citizens. Secondly, health care services should also be a priority of government spending. For example, Hospitals across Vietnam have recently have experienced high infant mortality rate due to the lack of vaccine. Without proper investment from government, this problem could bring catastrophic consequence on our demography/demographic patterns and in turn our economy.

On the other hand, the government should also pay attention to arts as it does for public services. One reason is that arts are means of recreation for all people in the society. Music can bring us a sense of relaxation after hours of stressful working and make our life more colourful and meaningful. Furthermore, arts can generate income for many people which become government revenues through individual taxes. Music industries nowadays are developing faster than any other sector and artists, many of whom are billionaires, pay a fair amount of taxes to the national budget.

 In conclusion, it is certainly true that the government should pay attention to public services. But this is by no means synonymous with imposing spending cut on art as it plays an important part in our life.

Some people think it is more important for the government to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it on the treatment of people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Whether a large proportion of a country’s budget should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventive measures has been a great debate. My view is that it should be the best of both worlds.

On the one hand, it is agreed that governments have limited health budgets, so, they must be prioritized. Admittedly, educating people how to live a long and healthy life, which is in human beings’ agendas, is important. It is obvious that some diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, cardiovascular disease, obesity, etc., are related to individuals’ daily habits, including eating junk food, smoking and involving in inactive lifestyles; medical costs for these diseases are very expensive.

On the other hand, the development of medical technologies and in curing methods also plays an important role. If there were no inventions in medicine and medical machines, doctors would be unable to treat the diseases and save millions of patients every year, such as people who get cancer, HIV/AIDS or heart diseases. However, to improve and to innovate the medical systems demand a large amount of money, so, the government should shoulder this responsibility. However, the budget of that is not unlimited, and there are simply too many issues that need to be dealt with and paid for, such as national defense, infrastructure. Therefore, a certain portion/ratio of the expenditure should be financed/covered by quality private companies.

In summary, I believe that governments should direct their citizens to a healthy lifestyle and encourage reliable companies to enter the medical market. By doing this, people can enjoy their life and the government can reduce their financial burden.

As well as making money, businesses also have social responsibilities. Do you agree or disagree?


In the modern busy life, responsibility to the public/ society has played an integral role in the development for both individuals and enterprises. Many adopt that businesses should only contribute to their economic boom without regarding the social concerns. For my own perspective, generating profits and social duties are equally important.

On the one hand, people recognize that firms need to make money to survive in this competitive world. Firstly, it is logical that the top priority of any company should be to cover its running costs, such as employee’s salary and office rental. Only by satisfying these expenditures can entrepreneurs generate innovations and makes more improvement in their businesses. Secondly, the expansion of businesses can effectively help the government to mitigate the problem of unemployment. In other words, a great number of employees are always needed in the process of expanding any company. Finally, if enterprises generate more money, they will pay more taxes to the government. As a consequence, the authority can use this capital to spend on key fields to enhance the quality of life of the whole community.

On the other hand, there are some strong reasons why businesses should accept that make contributions to the society. One reason is that enterprises must concern about environmental contamination because their production has direct negative impacts on the surrounding. A typical example is that if many factories in industrial zones installed wastewater system instead of discharging chemical waste directly into lakes and rivers, water degradation could be controlled. Another reason is that there are various simple measures that firms can take to contribute to the society. For example, they can carry out some charitable activities such as providing scholarships.

As a result, not only may they help those who are less fortunate but they also enhance their image. In conclusion, enterprises should place as much importance on their social obligations as they do on their financial goals.


It is true that besides generating money, companies also need to take responsibility for social issues. I completely agree with this idea.

On the one hand, there are some reasons why businesses are the importance of making money. One reason is that company with prosperity can boost the country’s development. For example, if companies make/ earn more money, they pay more taxes; as a result, the government can spend these budget on hospitals, schools, and other services. Furthermore, businesses which make a huge amount of money can expand and provide more jobs. For instance, nowadays there are a lot of youngsters unemployed, so thanks to the expansion, these businesses could give them countless opportunities to have a job.

Apart from the practical benefits expressed above, I believe that businesses should accept that they have social responsibilities. Firstly, a business must not harm the environment. Without controls, some factories discharged raw wastes, gases and poison onto the land, the air and the river, which result in the environmental degradation. Secondly, businesses which make profits should put money back into the community through charity and financial scholarship. As a result, increasing number of homeless people could have an adequate amount of food and sweater, poor/ underprivileged students could have much more motivation to keep their study.

In conclusion, I believe that it is important for firms to make money to cover their cost, but they must also have responsibilities in social life.

Essay 3

In the age of industrialization, making the greatest possible profit is supposed to be the main purpose of any business. While this may be true to some extent, I believe the responsibilities of businesses should include making money and making contributions to the community.

This can help not only the businesses to grow but also the whole country to develop. It goes without saying that earning profits is the ultimate aim of every company. The first reason to be mentioned is businesses pay taxes for the government. With that money, the government can build infrastructures such as hospitals, schools, and parks to take care of citizen’s mental and physical wellbeing, which can increase the standard of living of a certain country. Moreover, alongside the development of businesses, more jobs are created. A profitable company will consider expanding their business by building up other branches or investing overseas. The necessity for larger numbers of employees is prominent, which can solve the unemployment problem.

On the other hand, social responsibilities should also be seen as a long run strategy of businesses. Firstly, businesses cannot earn profits without consideration about the impacts of their operations on the people and the natural surroundings. Companies have responsibilities to protect mother nature who provides them with various materials as well as the users who consume almost all of their products. Strengthening the mutual beliefs is a wise strategy. In addition, big successful corporations can contribute to the quality of life of the society through charity and financial scholarships. This is an investment for the future of those companies. For example, Unilever often organizes contests with a big award to support promising young generations. By doing so, it gains a lot of attention from the society, especially the unveiled talented actors who can become their efficient employees one day.

In conclusion, development of industry nowadays gives businesses various opportunities to earn high profit. These businesses, however, need to take these advantages not only to bolster the operations but also to improve the quality of life of the community.

Essay 4

Businesses used to merely focus on making profits. However, corporate social responsibilities are becoming increasingly essential in today’s commercial world. I absolutely concur with the idea that entrepreneurs should make contributions to society apart from focusing on profit-making.

On the one hand, I admit businesses must make money. According to Milton Friedman, there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits (Capitalism and Freedom). Conglomerates need to serve the best interests of shareholders, employees, and customers. Simultaneously, they have to invest in buildings, utilities, and innovations in order to remain successful. If a company lacks the capacity for paying its bills and tranches, all efforts towards corporate social responsibilities will become insignificant. In other words, only when a firm has financial stability, can it contribute positively to society.

On the other hand, companies should not be operated with the only desire of maximizing profits. They need to achieve some social missions so that they can do business ethically and minimize negative environmental impacts. I also support the ideas that businesses raise funds or donations, participate in charitable activities, and increase a high sense of employees’ job satisfaction. As far as I have known, many conglomerates have established various programs and strategies to achieve a balance between the profitability and responsibility. Taking Apple and Microsoft as typical examples, two well-known multinational companies in information technology industry are substantial demonstrations of these actions.

To include, I think it is certainly true that businesses have profit-making amenability, but this is by no means sole mission in the long-term viability of every conglomerate in cutthroat competition nowadays.

Model 5

In recent years, the activities of businesses have had both positive and negative impacts on society, causing some public controversies. Although I accept that the top priority of companies is to generate profits, I would argue that they should appreciate the importance of social responsibilities.

On the one hand, there are several reasons why the effort of corporations to earn money may be one of the effective ways to contribute to society. First, since the enterprises have to pay taxes on their income, the higher profits they produce the more taxes they pay for the government. This acts as an incentive for the authorities to have funds to invest in important fields such as education and healthcare, which lead to the improvements in the quality of life of the community. Second, by raising a lot of profits, the corporations would be able to expand their businesses and create more job opportunities. As a result, the consequences of unemployment including the increase of crime rate, violence, and low consumption can be reduced in many countries.

On the other hand, I would argue that apart from making money, the companies also need to conduct social responsibilities. First, since the business activities contribute to harmful effects on the environment such as global warming stemming from factory emission or the problems of industrial waste disposal, the companies should be responsible to help to protect the natural environment. For example, many factories and industrial zones could take steps to install modern waste treatment systems to dispose waste materials instead of discharging them into the rivers or the atmosphere. Second, if the enterprises can support people who are less fortune like orphans, homeless and disabled citizens; this will be conducive to the better society and will enhance the public image of the company or the brand. For instance, some big companies like Vinamilk, PNG organize annual events such as providing scholarships and giving charitable donations to help the community as well as to enhance the public image of the company.

In conclusion, although making profits is a vital function of business, it seems to me that the companies should also have responsibilities.

Both governments and individuals are spending vast amounts of money protecting animals and their habitats. This money could be better spent dealing with fundamental issues in society such as poverty and healthcare. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The fights to protect animals and the fights against poverty and diseases are taking place every day on every corner of the world. Nevertheless, how the governments and individuals join in these fights depends greatly on the characteristics of the area they are living. As far as I’m concerned, in some areas, the conservation of animals and their home are costing residents and their government’s huge amounts of money and they should continue taking that step.

While with the authorities and individuals in other areas, urgent issues in society have priority over the protection of endangered animals. On the one hand, developing areas or nations are struggling with complicated social problems such as poverty or healthcare and conserving wild animals and their habitats are not the first priority. For example, suffering from poverty, starvation, and diseases to death is extremely common in Africa. It is where rainforests, the home of many animal species, are being destroyed are at an alarming rate, which is primarily caused by the activities of the general population. They rely heavily on wood as the major source of energy, cutting down trees for heating and cooking. Residents there are not even meet their own basic human needs, therefore can hardly bother conserving wild animals or their habitats. Clearly, this fact requires the authorities to spend money solving pressing problems in society first if they want to protect animals and the environment they live in.

On the other hand, high income and developed countries, where issues such as poverty and healthcare are no longer problems to their society, are giving a great deal of money to the conservation of endangered animals and their habitats. Many projects have been carried out, in which infrastructure and research are the two most expensive. An example of this is the successful captive breeding program in zoos, which cost a vast amount of money, has resulted in an increase in the world’s panda population. As the problem of conserving endangered animals and their home is getting more urgent, it is worth receiving more money.

 In conclusion, I accept that the protection of animals and their habitats is receiving 53 huge amounts of money in some areas and it is reasonable to continue to give money to it. While in other areas, pressing issues in society such as poverty and healthcare are the first priorities.

Some people think the government should pay for healthcare and education, but other people claim that it is the individual’s responsibility. Discuss both views and give your opinion?

It is true that the demand for healthcare and educational services has been significantly increasing in the world in recent years. Although there is widespread belief that people must be responsible for paying for their own health care and education, the government would be still accountable on this issue.

On the one hand, some people believe that health and education are personal matters as it is the responsibility of each individual to maintain their own health and education. The fact that, in one nation, there are different degrees of living, either employed citizens or unemployed ones, creates different/varied levels of taxes paid to the government. Therefore, it is unfair if all citizens can be received the same amount from government funding for their health care and educational services. Furthermore, by paying their own fees, people would be more serious about taking care of themselves.

On the other hand, people think that the responsibility of paying for health care and educational expenses belongs to the government. Citizens have to pay many kinds of fees for their government such as income taxes, property taxes and value added taxes, which strongly support the government in developing their army and technology. Therefore, government’s budgets should be allocated to fund medical activities and educational programs for their citizens to satisfy people’s physical needs, especially the poor people who are not able to get a good education and decent health care. By paying these expenses, governments would be gaining a number of advantages in training productive labors who will make a contribution to the development of the economy.

In conclusion, paying fees for health care and educational services is the responsibility of both individuals and governments. People must be accountable for their own education and healthcare while governments should take the appropriate course of action to relieve the heavy burden of spending on medicine and education.

Many people support the development of agriculture, such as factory farming and creation of new fruits and vegetables. Others oppose this idea. Present both views and give your opinion.

For many years, farming techniques have been improved by the touch of science which results in high crop yields and new types of product. While some people think this development may contain some potential harms to human and the environment, I am convinced by the idea that its positive aspect is more valuable. There are some certain doubts about the negative effects of science-related improvement in agriculture.

Firstly, many people believe that genetically modified crops could lead to health-related problems on humans. In fact, some researchers have found that genetic modification in foods pose significant allergy risks to our body which cause by some adding or mixing ingredients which did not exist on the original plants or animals. Secondly, growing crops with pesticides/ Insect-killed chemistry alters the way nature works. This mean, when harmful bugs are killed, other types of animal which eat them would be on the verge of extinction due to the lack of food. As a consequence, the ecosystem balance is disturbed that create irrevocable harm to the environment.

On the other hand, applying science advancements into farming brings enormous advantages to our society. An important thing should be mentioned is that it improves the quality and taste of products as well as nutrient. By crossing biological barriers, scientists can create corns that are sweeter or even more nutritious by enhancing the vitamins in order to provide delicious and healthier food for consumers. On top of that, genetic modification seems to be the most effective solution to tackle world hunger problem. This is because it invents productive species and makes crops more efficient which supply more food for developing countries where their citizens are facing with starvation.

In conclusion, I support for the revolution in farming because it really contributes to improving the living condition of human whereas its opposite side is still skeptical.

Some people think that developing countries need financial help from international organizations to continue their development. Some people argue that practical aid or advice is more useful. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

People‘s views differ over whether developing nations should receive financial or practical support from developed countries. In my book, I strongly believe that practical assistance would substantially contribute to the long-term growth of these countries.

On the one hand, getting monetary support/aid plays a crucial role in alleviating various economic problems of a country. This amount of money would probably make a huge difference in various aspects. In terms of transportation, the government can distribute their budget to the construction of railways towards slowing down traffic congestion. In terms of healthcare, it is vital to provide ethnic minority at the local territory with free medical services or raise public awareness through implementing nationwide campaigns. In addition, fiscal help would also temporarily lift impoverished people out of hunger, and is used for constructing some factories creating jobs for millions of residents. This would greatly contribute to mitigating unemployment rate.

On the other hand, while grants might be misused for wrong purposes, it is easier to take control of practical support. This would produce long-term measures to the problems of developing nations. The prosperous countries could spend higheducated experts to such nations in order to carry out a few training programs for local workers. For example, Vietnam has an agricultural economy; however, it has still struggled with low productivity for several decades due to the lack of advanced technology. In this context, it would be valuable to Vietnam if Japanese advisors travelled to Vietnam so as to introduce cutting-edge technology, for instance. Therefore, practical assistance apparently brings about a wider range of benefits than fiscal support.

In conclusion, I am in favour of the opinion that developing territories should prioritize practical support over monetary help. Should these nations want to gain a strong economy, they must get a practical contribution from international institutions. 301 words

Out of a country’s health budget, a large proportion should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventative measures. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the above statement?

In this world, many people are dying from various types of health-related problems due to the lacking of appropriate health education and preventive actions. That is why the government expends a huge amount of money finding an appropriate approach to this matter. By this, I mean that more money needs to be spent on programmes to prevent major illnesses and educate the public on their dangers.

There is a lot of ignorance about many common health problems, like heart disease for example. Many of these can be predicted/avoided, or their symptoms/effects radically reduced, if more people are made aware of them through public education programmes. This has already been proven in many countries. The UK, for instance, has seen a remarkable decrease in the number of women dying from breast cancer because social marketing campaigns provide information on potential threats and promote regular self-examination to discover this critical disease. With public awareness at its highest level ever, citizens are more health conscious and have the tendency to perform periodic medical checkup, which is beneficial in the long run.

Although I am strongly in favour of spending money on such programmes, I do not believe that the current health budget should suffer/ be maximized for this sole purpose. The day to day treatment which patients are currently undergoing/ experiencing is just as important. We must find the money for this crucial cause elsewhere. At the moment our government spends billions of dollars on weapons. If they diverted/ reallocated only a fraction of this into the health budget, medical facilities could be extensively improved and aids are given to more underprivileged people. Ultimately this would result in a significant reduction in the number of patients whose illnesses have not been prevented and in need of urgent medication, which, along with health-protecting and preventive programs, can improve the health of the nation as a whole.

In the end, whilst it is important to invest in a range of treatments available to people currently receiving them, I firmly believe that the government should also place an importance on disbursing the money to implement programmes which keep us in good health.

Leave a Comment


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.