We moved to alwaysielts, A website for IELTS news from 55+ websites.
Click here


Task 2 Sample: Worklife & Professionalism

World history suggests that violence and and conflict were more evident under male leadership that under female leadership. So, for peace to prevail, female leadership can be considered as a better option that male leadership.

The history of humans has been violence and conflict stricken since the beginning of time. As far as we can look back in time we see wars, power struggles and revolutions. We also see that society has always been predominantly male dominated, with leaders and rulers mainly being men. It is, hence, easy to blame the ruler and put the responsibility of atrocities on the shoulders of men. But a deeper perspective always reveals to historians that conflict is a generic tendency of humans. So peace being disturbed is not the liability of men only, but humans in general, and a power shift, from men to women, is destined to be futile in prevailing peace.

Most of the women who are known to be great till date, e.g. Queen Isabella of Spain, Queens Marry, a.k.a. Bloody Marry, Victoria, and Elizabeth of Britain, all have ruled over vast spectrums of power. And they often have done so ruthlessly, achieving goals with an iron hand. They have waged wars that are barely comparable to only few of those devised by men. These women are not anomalies of history, but examples from numerous others, who went beyond the boundaries of gender in the path of prevailing in power while expending peace whenever they deemed it to be expendable.

The two greatest wars of modern history, World Wars I & II, have taught us that wars are impersonal. Race, religion, nationality, sex are only pretense to the universally human lust for power. It is true that during both the global conflicts men were in the rulers’ thrones. But it will be foolish to say that Margaret Thatcher, the famed Iron Lady who spared no rod against a minnow enemy in the war of Falkland, would be more peacefully diplomatic than how the greats Winston Churchill and Franklyn D. Roosevelt had been tackling the Axis of Hitler. The gender issue is only a determinant in the battle of the sexes, not the battles among nations and peoples.

It is therefore impertinent, if not irrational, to conclude that world conflicts result from the rule of a particular gender and the finer sex would do a better job at prevailing peace if selectively put at the helm of human nations

We moved to alwaysielts, A website for IELTS news from 55+ websites.
Click here

Nowadays, as women and men have to work full time, household duties should be equally divided. Do you agree or disagree?

In today’s society both female and male go to work permanently so in terms of housework should be just. I completely agree that both should share these responsibilities.

On the one hand, the stability of a marriage may be affected negatively by the unequal division of household duties. Currently, women have an equal opportunity to move up their career ladder which leads to the heavy pressure overburdened with work being responsible for. This workload, as well as the large domestic tasks at home, make them stressful and many have conflicts with their husbands who only spend a little time doing household chores. As a result, these couples are more likely to end up with divorce. So if men can share equally domestic responsibilities with their wives, both men and women are likely to enjoy a better marriage.

On the other hand, when a couple shares the role of doing household chores, they could be a role model for their children to look up to and children raised/ brought up in such families will learn to evaluate of empathy and tend to share the responsibilities with their partners when they grow up. Besides, doing domestic tasks together is a great way to help couples closer in their relationship, resulting in improving the quality of their marital life. For instance, after husband can take care of children while his wife can cook and after dinner meal, the husband can clean up the table while his wife washes the dishes.

In conclusion, I strongly argue that working couples are encouraged to share their role and responsibilities at home to keep happy in their families.

Some say that because many people are living much longer, the age at which people retire from work should be raised considerately. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

It is argued that retirement age should be increased markedly since human lifespan has been prolonging than ever before. This essay agrees with this assertion completely because of the benefits it brings to individuals as well as society. The essay will first look at why many people want to quit the job at the retirement age and then discuss why they should continue their contribution to the society if they can.

On the one hand, many people hold a common belief that current age is suitable for retirement for many senior employees. It may argue that the elder age, such as 60 for men in Vietnam, is the stage that they should keep out of the work because their health may fail to keep pace with the heavy workload. Furthermore, the old age, as well as a prosperous life, discourage people from working motivation to achieve more goals. Time is a treasure for them at this stage so that they virtually want to spend it with their families.

On the other hand, it is undeniable that elders’ knowledge and experience are likely to be a precious property in many organizations. Therefore, it will be better students will not fall behind their study when studying with same-sex students. For example, talented scientists or prominent politicians who are obviously valuable to the country should work tirelessly until their health standards are not allowed. In addition, it is true that there are many older people who feel lonely or redundant while they are fully energetic at the age of retirement.

Therefore, instead of staying at home, they really want to go out and take up their new work. In conclusion, it seems to me that the retirement age should be raised since there are many people who are energetic to continue to make their contributions to the community.

Some organizations believe that their employees should dress smartly. Others value the quality of work above appearance. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Nowadays, the society is becoming more and more developed; hence, the needs of costumes are also getting realistic. Therefore, numerous establishments argue that their operatives should attire elegantly. However, there are some contrast ideas that the achievements of work are a much more serious matter. In my opinion, the efficiency of work is the theme issue that everyone should care especially.

It is generally believed that the fashion aspect of shop-floor becomes the requirement of a majority of companies nowadays because it represents their image. For instance, an employee dressing formally will be judged students will not fall behind their study when studying with same-sex students in a bigger and more prestigious organization than the ones who wear casual clothes. Moreover, elegant clothes worn by an identical team brings fervency for officers. Furthermore, good outer-shell also illustrates the hierarchy of each operative and demonstrates their characteristics. For example, when you wear a suit, you look gently and intelligently than when you wear baggy pants with a long T-shirt.

On the other hand, judging staff by their appearance is a conservative method. This is because, in some circumstances, comfortable clothes assist the employees to have better working performance. For this reason, it is obviously hilarious when a rock singer wears a suit on stage or a builder wears a dress in the construction sites. What is more, most of the world’s geniuses assume that dressing up may waste a lot of time but the productivity of work is not significantly improved.

In conclusion, both two sides of views have the sense to be logical and reasonable and each of them will be suitable or not depending on the career of each operative. However, in my point of view, I certainly attach special importance to the working effectiveness.

Some people think that having a set retirement age (e.g, 65 years) for everybody, regardless of occupation, is unfair. They believe that certain workers deserve to retire and receive a pension at an earlier age. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Some people consider that governments set a retirement age (such as sixty-five) for all of their citizens without concerning the career is prejudicial. Therefore, they think it should be more flexible with exemptions for certain occupations. I completely agree with this assertion.

To begin with, there is a variety of reasons why many people think that setting a retirement age regardless of job categories is unfair. Firstly, it is obvious/ undeniable that many occupations necessitate extreme physical and mental activities to achieve certain goals. This could make them nearly exhausted before reaching that age. For example, welders or coal miners could find it difficult to do hard works when they are older. Secondly, as some senior people stay in their high position for a long time in the company, it might limit the opportunities for young people who are full of energy and creativity. These people always want to show off their ability to gain the company recognition and climb higher in their career ladder.

I strongly believe that in some certain occupations, workers deserve to retire and get a pension at an earlier age. Especially those who are working in physically demanding conditions or in high stressful positions should be in early retirement group. This is because their health issues/ problems might not allow them to follow the work, such as construction workers or emergency medical practitioners. Furthermore, in order to gain the fairest arrangement for every occupation, the earlier pension that they receive must be calculated based on their contribution to the society.

In conclusion, it seems to me that a fixed retirement age without categorizing the jobs is unfair and workers in certain careers have a right to receive an earlier pension based on their contribution.

Some people think women should be allowed to join the army, the navy, and the air force just like men. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is clear that women are highly recommended to have an important role as men in the workplaces, even if engaging in the navy, the military, and the air force. I completely agree with this idea as it is the good way to prevent gender discrimination in modern society.

There are a number of reasons why females should be given an equal opportunity of embarking on any kinds of job in all sectors. First, women are just as qualified as men these days. This is because they are also trained/ taught academic knowledge and physical strength in the university like men, even if women currently outperform males in most university subjects. This leads to the fact that women are able to do any job which men do, such as becoming an army officer or sailor. Second, women have some vital characteristics, such as persistence and calmness, to be suitable to work in the military forces. As a result, the conflicts would be solved in the way of peace, especially quarrels between nations. For example, in Viet Nam there are a lot of women who are working at the police station of the big cities, such as Ho Chi Minh City, they not only protect the life of local people/ city dwellers but also perform the policy of the government as their male counterparts. Moreover, they increasingly prove their capabilities when having the vital position in police force.

In addition, women should be allocated a certain percentage at least an equal role as men in the army, the navy, and the air force. Mainly because to not do so, discriminates against them due to their gender. As a result, women will be denied jobs in regular force, not because of their intellect or skills, but simply because of their sex. For example, females are not regarded as appropriate candidates to be soldiers to any section of an army as they can have some of the physical weakness. If women have an equal position as men in these regions, both men and women would have the same opportunities to pursue their expected careers.

In conclusion, the gender equality between men and women should be applied in all fields job around the world.

Most large companies nowadays operate multi-nationally. To what extent do multinational companies have responsibilities toward local communities in which they operate?

In recent years, there has been a growing trend of large companies’ expanding their branches outside the confines of national borders, thanks to globalization. Although this movement offers broad-based benefits to multinational corporations, their responsibilities to the local communities should be concentrated/prioritized.

There are a few reasons why multinational enterprises should be responsible to local people. First, since multinational firms want to maximize their profits, they take steps to understand the cultures of the country they are based. The more those companies are aware of others’ cultural value and custom, the more citizens would like to engage and support their business. Second, multinational companies should create job opportunities for local communities as a part of co-existence. In fact, many countries have been suffering from child labour and starvation wages, causing many companies go bankrupt at an early stage.

In addition, multinational firms must safeguard the resources of the countries where they operate. First, if multinational enterprises actively protect the environment, it will contribute to their long-term success. For example, multinational enterprises, especially manufacturing industry, must build systems for wastewater treatment instead of disposing it directly to the sea, which results in devastating local fishing industry. Also, they should not make profits at the expense of local welfare. For instance, unsustainable logging forestry to cut down timber to make certain products, such as paper and furniture, causing the substantial/a substantial impact on local farmers due to resultant soil erosion.

In conclusion, multinational corporations should ensure that they have acknowledged the culture and protected the environment as it is conducive to make longstanding benefits for the company and local communities.

It is said that work is the most important thing in people’s lives. Without the success of career, life will be meaningless. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Many people argue that career plays an important role in human’s life which would make life become meaningful if they make achievements in their career. Although I agree that distinguished career could bring meaning to life, I believe that there are various other key factors which make human life become worthwhile.

On the one hand, there is a variety of reasons why work becomes a crucial element in people’s lives. Firstly, people take worthwhile jobs which can guarantee the well-off standard of living. When a person achieves well-being relying on his distinguished career, he is likely to complete his expectations or targets in life which make him satisfied and perceive life as meaningful. Secondly, work may cause definite influences on people’s spirit. For example, the state of being stuck in failed career could cause people to suffer from chronic stress and depressed state, which not only impact on mental and physical health, but also make them have negative outlooks in different aspects of life.

On the other hand, I consider that outside of work, people have different goals to attaint meanings in their life. There are a huge number of volunteers who regard helping underprivileged sections of the community or unfortunates as their job. For volunteers, meaningful life is to help socially underprivileged groups and unfortunates so that they can overcome poverty and difficulties, no matter that these jobs cannot bring well-being to life. Furthermore, in some families, the man is the breadwinner who takes responsibility for family income, while the woman stays at home to take care of household chores. These housewives do not enter the workforce but they still satisfied with wife and mother duties.

In conclusion, many people think that a person who fails in his career path may have a meaningless life, but I believe that whether life is meaningful is evaluated by various factors in social life besides work.

In modern society, it is possible to go shopping, work and communicate via the Internet without face-to-face contact with one another. To what extent do you think this is a positive or negative development?

There is a growing trend towards integrating cutting-edge technology into a number of daily activities, and interpersonal communication has been increasingly replacing. While this development has been fraught with pitfalls, I believe the advantages would outweigh these drawbacks.

There exist some potential disadvantages when we are exposed to computers on a regular basis. In fact, nowadays, people have a tendency to be over-reliant on technology and in-person interaction seems to disappear. Therefore, the enhancement of communication skills would be marginal, which has a myriad of adverse impacts not only on adolescents at school but also adults at their workplace. In addition, the likelihood of being addicted to technology could escalate/ascend due to the excessive exposure to a computer monitor. As a result, people would be prone to have a sedentary lifestyle, which leads them to conduct many dangerous diseases, especially obesity or heart ones.

However, superseding real interaction by technology would bring about more merits. First, since the accessibility to the Internet has been widespread around the world, people could take advantage of useful applications serving a lot of purposes to save their time. For example, instead of spending a great amount of time on going to department stores, people now have the ability to opt for services and goods at home thanks to the presence of free shopping apps. Second, the replacement may act as a contributor to the alleviation of traffic congestion in a wide/significant number of urban areas because of the lower rate of participating in transportation. The implication of this is that individuals could also economize on fuel expenses and travel costs and make use of such money to boost their wellbeing.

In conclusion, while some consider applying technology into our social life a negative development, it is my belief that technology has played an indispensable role in our lives and offered remarkable advantages/virtues.

Leaders and directors in an organization are normally older people. Some people think younger leaders would be better. Do you agree or disagree?

People have different views about whether young people or the elderly is more suitable for the important position in organizations. While I agree that the elderly have accumulated significantly vital qualities, I would agree that youngsters are more likely to become better leaders.

On the one hand, the elderly can be a good leader for some reasons. Firstly, because the elder people have worked for many years, they have gathered more experience than young workers. This allows them to make a wiser decision and bring success for the company where they work. Secondly, the old people usually be more respected by other people. Therefore, they can have a more powerful voice in the company, and the others are more likely to listen to them.

On the other hand, I believe that it is better for young individuals to take up crucial position. The first reason is that young people are physically stronger, so they can handle big responsibilities and involve many works. Becoming a leader requires everyone work with much pressure, and the elderly are less likely to do it. Furthermore, youngsters are more creative, they are more like to find the newer and better improvement that benefits the entire organization. For example, a young manager can come up with an advertising strategy for a product line, and this contributes to increasing the sale of a company.

In conclusion, while I agree that the elder people can be a good leader of an organization, I would believe that vital positions should be given to youngsters.

Model 2

It is prevalent in organizations and companies that older people hold higher positions as managers or directors. In my opinion, it is reasonable when aged members possess more advantages over the younger in leading an organization.

To begin with, older people tend to accumulate much more work experience than the young. This is due to the fact that over years of working, older people have to confront more challenges and from each difficulty they have to encounter, they may learn a lesson. Furthermore, confronting with a variety of challenges in working also help them become mentally stronger in comparison with the younger, and this is especially helpful when the company is in danger. For instance, when the company is facing a crisis, it would be easier for an older manager who has more experience to decide what the company should do to ensure the stability and achieve a sustainable recovery after the crisis. In other words, an organization requires a leader who has not only knowledge but also strong nerves, and both of those things are advantages of the older people over the young. Another advantage which makes senior members more suitable for a manager position is that they often have a closer relationship with their colleagues. As their time spent working together in their organizations, aged members and their colleagues go through thick and thin together which helps them build a strong understanding relationship with each other as well as prove their abilities and personalities. Thus, they tend to receive more respect and support from people than younger people. Moreover, the understanding of colleagues and the company culture also make it easier for them to manage and lead the organization. For example, the more understanding of the staff do they have, the more effective HR policies they could propose to facilitate the working process as well as improve productivity. As a result, the strong relationship with their colleagues and the understanding of organization culture make older people a more successful leader than the younger ones.

People who believe that the manager position should belong to the young may argue that younger people are more determined and have a stronger motivation to succeed than older ones. However, in my point of view, I think that determination and strong motivation are not enough to make young people more suitable to be a leader than the old. Young people who hold a higher position tend to be more arrogant and competitive as they have to show their abilities and talents to prove that they deserve the positions. The harder they try to prove themselves as leaders, the more determined they are and the less they listen to other ideas of the staff. This may lead to an uncomfortable working atmosphere, and even conflicts, between young leaders and their colleagues. Therefore, it becomes more difficult for young leaders to receive the approval from others as well as manage the organization.

In conclusion, it seems to me that aged people can be better than the young in leading and managing organizations or companies.

Employers sometimes ask people applying for jobs for personal information, such as their hobbies and interest, and whether they are married or single. Some people say that this information may be relevant and useful. Others disagree. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

It is true that the question of whether to provide personal information or not when applying for a job is rather debatable. Some are of the view that it is necessary to do it, yet others do not agree. I will examine both views in this writing before setting out my personal opinion on the matter.

There are a variety of reasons why recruiters tend to ask for personal information from job applicants. Firstly, they definitely want to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of such candidates. By this way, it will be easy to choose suitable employees for the vacancy. For example, rather than choosing those who are married, single people are obviously more appropriate for the positions which require many business trips. Secondly, the staff are likely to benefit in some cases when the companies help them develop their career path based on their strengths. Instead of struggling to meet/fulfill sales target, introverted staff will be encouraged to do in the back office, which might lead to career success in the future.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that the privacy cannot be invaded. The first reason for this is that it is a human right to have their information kept confidentially. It is not compulsory to expose one’s privacy to everyone. In some multinationals, application forms even do not require to provide the private information such as their gender, age, marital status and so forth. Furthermore, the result may be devastating if the personal information is stolen or hacked. There is no evidence that the companies can absolutely guarantee the employee’s information safety even though they have spent a great deal of money on data security.

In conclusion, although the more information the applicants provide, the more beneficial it is for both employers and employees, it seems to me that the privacy is vitally important and it cannot be invaded by any reasons.

Some people think that men and women have different qualities. Therefore, some certain jobs are suitable for men and some jobs are suitable for women. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

While there are arguments that men and women are suitable for some different types of a job due to their distinctive abilities, I personally believe that gender should not a deterrent to one’s decision to pursue a particular career.

Firstly, I would argue that females are still able to earn a living by doing masculine jobs and vice versa. For instance, there are plenty of women who are doing blue-collar jobs with a heavy workload in factories while the number of men choosing to be pink-collar workers, such as telephone consultants, is rapidly increasing. Moreover, they are not only able to work in but also successful in fields tending to be stereotypically suitable for the other gender. One potent example is Hillary Clinton, a powerful woman who has reached the top of her career with strong career ambitions … in politics although this field is supposed to be dominated by men for a long time.

Secondly, it is undeniable that different characteristics between males and females create variety/diversity in working environment, which will enhance labour productivity. To be more precise, women and men could play complementary roles by making the most of their own capability to be supportive co-workers. Take drivers, for example, female drivers seem to be more careful, thus they might be better at transporting fragile products. Meanwhile, male drivers are likely to be stronger, so they could be more appropriate for long journeys. Apparently, if firms are able to provide both women and men opportunities to move up the career ladder regardless of their gender, their profits would be dramatically maximized.

In conclusion, I would restate that either males or females should have equal chances to put their knowledge and skills into practice in any industry they want to work in     

Model 2

It is widely acknowledged that there are distinctive physical and mental strengths when making a comparison between men and women, which engenders public opposing ideas of whether there are disparities in the particular type of jobs among two sexes or not. Whereas this opinion is rather well-founded to some extent, reality has proven otherwise.

On the one hand, it cannot be denied that women are perceived to be more fragile with reference to men. This would lead to the fact that women tend to perform better at tasks requiring great patience and emotional connection like pink collar jobs. By contrast, there is a tendency for male labor to concentrate on heavy industry job-related owing to physical strengths and agility. Therefore, gender difference could bring a different perspective in terms of job selections, which is the strong reason for the disparities in occupational compatibility among genders.

On the other hand, reality has seen the exchange between job preference between men and women. A vast number of men increasingly become more interested in filling in positions that have been traditionally considered feminine. Research has shown that men make up about 10% of nurses in Australia and male students account for 16% of all students in Sydney nursing university. By contrast, women are now dominating numerous jobs that used to belong to men, even those demanding both brains and brawns. Furthermore, women’s social status has improved over time owing to the success of businesswomen and politicians, Hillary Clinton for example.

In conclusion, all existing data has provided the concrete evidence that despite different characteristics, men and women are capable of taking charge of all available jobs.

Nowadays people normally stretch their work hours and get stressed than before. What are the reasons for this? What can employers do to make people’s life easier?

It is true that more and more people are expanding their working hours and (are) putting themselves under too much pressure. There are a number of reasons for this phenomenon and several solutions should be adopted to solve the problem.

There are two primary reasons why workers nowadays tend to work extra hours and why people’s lives are becoming stressful. Firstly, it is due to the heavy pressure given by the employers to finish the projects on time. If one person doesn’t finish the work on time, it may affect the whole team and lower the productivity of the firm. Another reason is the competitiveness in the labor market. As the supply of labor is higher than the demand, it means that employers could be selective in hiring their potential employees. The workers can be laid off anytime if they cannot work efficiently. As a result, they need to secure the job by showing their better performance at work, and working extra hours is the solution chosen by many people.

There are several things that employers and employees could do to deal with the problem. Many people believe that exercises could reduce stress level and help people increase productivity at work. Therefore, many companies are providing fitness center in their office so that their staff members can relax after work and help them sustain their health condition. Another solution to this issue is that employees should set themselves a timetable, order the work based on their priority, focus on their work, avoid anything that can disturb them at work to increase the productivity and finish the task on time.

In conclusion, working extra hours and getting stressed at work is a big problem for many companies, and solutions should be implemented urgently to tackle this issue.

As most people spend a major part of their adult life at work, job satisfaction is an important element of individual wellbeing. What factors contribute to job satisfaction? How realistic is the expectation of job satisfaction for all workers?

In the modern world where the living standard is constantly increasing and worklife balance is getting harder to maintain, people need enjoyment at work to become a mentally healthy individual of the society.

It is true to say that income, working environment and passion are the key determinants of job satisfaction. For different professions, expectations in the listed factors are varied, but I believe that satisfaction is only an unachievable dream for the majority of workers. First, it is argued that the main reason for people to go to work every day is remuneration. In fact, employees demand an appropriate salary from the organizations and will consider changing their career path once a bettercompensated position becomes available. Obviously, a higher paid worker will be more satisfied than someone with lower pay rate. Secondly, a positive working atmosphere will reduce the pressure on employees, which results in a happy and stress-free community. A workplace where everyone is friendly will encourage people to enjoy their working basis. Finally, human’s passions and desires also play a vital role in a delightful career. For instance, an artistic person will find painting more enthusiastic than being an IT professional, while a history lover will live his dream of becoming an archaeologist.

On the other hand, it is nearly impossible for anyone to be completely satisfied with his or her occupation. The truth is, with a high remuneration comes an enormous amount of stress. A worker who is constantly under pressure will not be satisfied with their position, while a flexible job that fulfills workers’ passion often has low wages. It seems that human nature is the main obstacle for employees to achieve working delight.

In conclusion, people are seeking satisfaction at their workplace as a daily motivation to work. Three main contributors to a satisfying job are appropriate compensation, positive working environment, and enthusiasm. On the whole, I believe human nature will hinder our desire of working satisfaction.

When choosing a job, the salary is the most important consideration. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is true that salary plays an integral part in selecting career/choosing a job. While I accept that this may suite to many people, I believe that there are many ones choosing jobs according to other considerations.

On the one hand, there are a variety of reasons / various reasons for considering salary as the most crucial factor. A high income guarantees a high standard quality of life, in which the people can afford their increasing demand on not only human basic needs but also luxurious things such as brand new accessories or overseas holidays. Besides/ In addition, many people set salary as a measure of their working capacity as well as their level in the company. The higher income they receive, the more valuable they are in their prospective employment; therefore, not only the amount of money itself but also made-up reputation makes the salary the most concerned matter in job selection.

On the other hand, there is an increasing number of people considering other conditions to make a decision on job movement. The working environment is highlighted in the requirement of many job seekers, especially for people who adore the freedom and outdoor activities. In fact, they cannot stand on the job which requires 8 hours of sitting in front of the computer every day like a bank officer even though this vacancy is offered the extremely competitive salary in the job market. In addition, contribution to the society is also an interesting matter that a lot of people choose. For example, instead of working for a big consulting firm in the city, many friends of mine go to rural areas, assisting and improving the performance of local enterprises. They receive a tiny amount of money, but they are happy with their choices because they help to increase the average income of the local residents.

In conclusion, it is certainly true that the salary is important in job selection of many people, but this is by no means the key consideration for everybody in making a career decision.

In some countries, a few people earn extremely high salaries. Some people think that this is good for a country, while others believe that the government should control salaries and limit the amount people can earn Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people believe that residents having extremely well-paid jobs are making their countries better, whereas others think that remuneration should be controlled and limited strictly by the authorities. In my opinion, I endorse the limitless amount people can earn.

On the one hand, nations derive great benefits from citizens who are paid at high salary level. It is the fact that the more people can earn the more taxation is paid. Thus, Government incomes which are making an outstanding contribution to budgeting for public infrastructure construction, education system, healthcare system or other social services will increase significantly if there is a reasonable rise in the number of employees earning high salaries. Therefore, residents’ life becomes facilitated since public services are more invested by the authorities. However, there is an obvious drawback occurring as a consequence of raising salaries. Particularly, the gap between the poor and the rich grows and social equity is not guaranteed.

On the other hand, controlling and limiting the amount people can earn bring community an undeniable advantage which is the elimination of wealth gap. The gap will be narrowed if citizens are paid at similarly designed levels of salary. It results in ensuring social equality. Nevertheless, this leads to a reduction of working productivity because high remuneration is one of the most crucial factors affecting workers’ motivation. This not only has a detrimental effect on working enthusiasm but also make employees dissatisfied when they think that they may deserve a higher level of salary than a limited one.

In conclusion, although there are advantages and disadvantages under both aforementioned views, it seems to me that the public sectors should not control salaries and allow residents earn the amount they deserve.

Some people think that people who choose a job early and keep doing it are more likely to get a satisfying career life than those who frequently change jobs. To what extent do you agree or disagree?


Many people argued that deciding their career path at an early aged and stay persistent in pursuing it to gain satisfaction job rather than being frequent job hoppers. While nobody can deny the benefits of staying longer at the same company, I believe that job hopping and temporary jobs give an equally rewarding experience. On the one hand, people who are aware of their personal interests in a career path which lead to a satisfying working life is beneficial in some ways. Firstly, from early childhood, many people had an overall picture of their work field what they will pursue in the future and this will instill in them enormous motivation and persistence to gain their goals. For example, many children dream of becoming scientists, they have to nurture their ambition and devote efforts to gaining the relevant qualifications and undertake years of training. Besides, people who are loyal to a company will have various opportunities for career advancement. They will be highly valued and be promoted to a higher position by the manager. This brings them a satisfaction in their career life.

On the other hand, there are a variety of reasons why people tend to change their job after a period working at the same company. Firstly, switching jobs allows workers to escape dead-end jobs and continue to learn and grow different skills in their profession. They will be exposed to new colleagues and working environment that shows them how to do things differently. This might help many job-seekers satisfy to the desire for adventure. Secondly, many people have a tendency to try on diverse jobs before they figure out the jobs what they are passionate about. When they love their work, they will work hard and maintain their enthusiasm in their new role.

 In conclusion, although working longer in one organization is more beneficial for people’ career life, I believe that job switching helps people learn new skills and therefore work in a lot.


It is true that from an early age many people are able to decide what career they want to pursue, which remain as their profession for the rest of their lives. While there are several benefits of the loyalty to one job, I would argue that regularly switching jobs will lead to a more satisfying working life. On the one hand, staying in the same job exerts many positive influences on workers. Firstly, being familiar with their job allows workers to effectively maintain the balance between work and life. By having a thorough insight into their work routine, workers can easily spare time to enjoy their personal lives, which reduces their level of stress. Secondly, people who stay in the same profession for a long time can also benefit from better job prospects. In other words, as experience and commitment are both taken into consideration when deciding one’s position, those who work for an organization longer will have countless opportunities to move up the ladder and earn a more lucrative living.

On the other hand, I still believe that job hopping will result in a more satisfying professional life. As a matter of fact, discovering the ideal career is a continuous process of trial and error. For example, many graduates have to change jobs several times to figure out their ideal/prefect/ dream job which can enable them to maintain their enthusiasm and keep the cycle of excitement and performance ongoing. Additionally, job hopping also helps individuals to gain valuable knowledge and new skills. Being experienced with various jobs, people would possess a golden selling point to integrate into the global working environment, which is essential in the age of globalization where different cultures cross.

In conclusion, while staying in the same profession offers several practical values for workers, I still believe that changing jobs regularly will provide people with a greater sense of fulfillment.

Some people think that men and women have different qualities. Therefore, some certain jobs are suitable for men and some jobs are suitable for women. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is true that to distinguish men and women, the nature has blessed different characteristics for them. This is the reason why some people supposed that there are some careers just appropriate for males and opposite. Nevertheless, the opposites think that both can do the same work equally. This essay will discuss both perspectives.

On the one hand, it would be absurd to ignore the fact that jobs which require tremendous physical strength and agility such as mining feature male labor. Women, meanwhile, are assumed to be better at tasks that take great patience as well as skills to perform like household chores. In fact, a majority of men and women could not exchange their preferred fields of expertise, which is a strong reason for the distribution of the types of jobs among the two sexes.

On the other hand, it is impossible to demonstrate scientifically the existence of biological differences between women and men which suit either sex for particular jobs. Working conditions which are harmful to women also threaten the male safe too. Moreover, the female surgeon, taxi driver, footballers, weightlifting athletes are not rare these days, as well as more and more men assume responsibilities of nurses, early childhood educators, or designers. An excellent example of careers without distinction of gender is an icon in the scientific world and has received tributes from across the globe for her contribution, Marie Curie. Your second para is totally fine.

 In conclusion, from my perspective, in today’s world, both women and men have the same abilities and opportunities to do any job which they are interested in. The most important thing is whether these careers are really their passions and they could complete their work well or not. There is no limitation for men and women in job market except preconception.

Being a celebrity – such as a famous film star or sports personality – bring problems as well as benefits. Do you think that being a celebrity brings more benefits or more problems? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

In recent years, there has been a growing tendency for people to look for being well-known. In my opinion, this trend could have positive and negative consequences in equal measure. Being a famous person can be seen as positive for both personal and broader social reasons.

On the individual level, the activities on showbiz can bring them a reputation as well as wealth. Their coverage in the movies, TV channels or magazines helps them earn a great deal of money. These persons/people usually tend to receive a higher payment than those who have yet to be famous. From the social perspective, it is true that most celebrities have many good qualities. No successful person makes it to the top without years of working hard and a healthy lifestyle. Therefore, they will definitely be a role model for thousands of youngsters.

 However, the aforementioned personal and social arguments (given above) can be considered from the opposite angle. Firstly, in order to stay in public’s eye, many celebrities are willing to pay for luxurious things that cost an arm and a leg, such as clothes, cars and so forth. Even there are some people who go bankrupt just because they do not control their spending, Siu Black singer as an example. Secondly, famous people’s privacy is very/highly vulnerable. They are always followed by paparazzi. Their scandals such as marital marriage or revealing clothes will instantly spread in the tabloid newspapers when they have just happened. This might adversely/negatively affect younger generations when they usually consider their idols as a source of inspiration.

In conclusion, being famous will have both beneficial and detrimental effects on individuals and on the society. Thus, this is, in my view, simultaneously advantageous and detrimental.

Recent research has shown that within the European Union the largest difference between the earnings of men and women exists in the UK. Many equal rights campaigners believe that immediate action should be taken to close the gender pay gap. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?

Researchers have recently revealed that within the European Union, the UK has the greatest gender pay gap. Supporters of the equal rights movement urge people to take action to eliminate this difference in income between males and females, whereas others object this sudden change. This essay discusses both sides of the debate, followed by my personal opinion.

Advocates of equal earnings of men and women base their arguments on two main reasons. To commence, the closing of the gender pay gap will encourage female labor and benefit the economy as a whole. As women feel like their work is valued, they are bound to increase their productivity and dedication, resulting in better quality human resources for corporations and ultimately stimulating the growth of the economy. Moreover, the increase in the number of financially independent women also reduces poverty, minimizing the burden on the budget of the nation. Furthermore, by taking actions to narrow the gender pay gap, one is promoting social justice, which is essential for the development of the community. For instance, a female has a passion for astronomy, a male dominant field can now feel welcomed to join and contribute her talent to our world. Although few people are aware, the person who wrote the coding for spaceships that took humans to the moon was a woman, providing/offering/establish a compelling evidence for why social justice is crucial for the progress of mankind.

However, opponents of paying women equal wage insist that it is challenging to immediately close the gender pay gap. Firstly, such sudden change in economic infrastructure could put a strain on the country’s resources, leading to/causing the reduction in workforce. This could cause protests and unwanted controversies. Additionally, rewarding males and females equally could lead to the neglect of children. Since women are more motivated to pursue their career, their children would receive much less attention, which is disadvantageous to their upbringing.

In conclusion, I agree with the advocates for closing the gender pay gap, as by doing so, not only females, but our entire society benefits on various aspects. However, the process of paying women and men equally should be carried out moderately to avoid unnecessary difficulties

Some people feel that entertainers (e.g. films stars, pop musicians or sports stars) are paid too much money. Do you agree or disagree?

In recent years, entertainment is more significant for life, and it is argued that entertainers such as film stars, pop musicians or sports stars are paid too much money. In my opinion, I agree and also disagree with/partly agree with this viewpoint. I do not concur with this angle because of- some reasons below. First of all, film stars, pop musicians and sports stars are occupations, entertainers genuine spend their time, money and health to practice and raise their ability to make many goods and services for public or audiences. Therefore, it is suitable for them to receive a lot of money. Secondly, artistic talent is really rare and there is a small number of people who can create special art goods or art services for audiences.

These arguments given above can be seen as opposite perspective in equal measure. To begin with, some entertainers whose goods or services are not really good, but their salaries which they receive from their audiences are very high. For instance, there are some singers whose voices are bad in Vietnam recently, but they have had some scandals and public are interested in them, so they have paid a large amount of money to see and hear these singers singing.

On the other hand, some jobs such as – engineers, researchers- need abundant time, knowledge and various work experiences to do these jobs, but they have been paid much far less money than entertainers.

In conclusion, I do concur and also do disagree with the perspective that entertainers are paid too much money.

Model 2

Recent decades have witnessed the wealth of many celebrities in the showbiz world. Therefore, while some people consider that they have been too highly paid, I totally disagree with this point of view.

To begin with, on the individual level, it is obvious that no star can make it to the top without years of dedication to working hard. Indeed, in order to move up the ladder of success, they must put their efforts into daily training, even if they could suffer from injuries that probably cause them some health deterioration. For example, so-called spectaculars which we saw in the film are truly a result of many consistent hard-working years of the actors and actresses. In addition to the age element, the competition in the entertainment industry nowadays is getting more severe. So/Therefore, it is hard for the entertainers to maintain their performance during a long period of time. As a result, acquiring a high pay could be considered an acceptable compensation for them.

From the social perspective, the stars deserve high income due to their notable role in forming students’ characteristics. Specifically, it is undeniable that most youngsters usually look up to their favorite celebrities as a role model. Therefore, they definitely seek and imitate the good quality of these idols. Gradually, they could get into the good habit/way of living. Furthermore, the stars can inspire their fans with valuable moral lessons. That might (partly) contribute to a better society. For example, My Tam – a music star in Vietnamese entertainment industry, usually spends her time on asking her fans to help the poor or the underprivileged people.

 In conclusion, for the reasons I mentioned above, I strongly believe that renowned entertainers are deserved to receive a good income for their contribution.

Many people claiming that hopping from one workplace to another is more beneficial than staying in one job for a very long time. Do you agree or disagree?

It is true that people who find a job early in their working age and keep doing it consistently are more likely to have/acquire/live in a successful working life. While I accept that this may suit many people, I believe that switching jobs from one to another eventually will lead to a fulfilling life.

On the one hand, there are several reasons why job seekers should make their choice of profession early in their lives. Firstly, by doing so, they will not waste their time on confusing what job should they take or start all over again in a new working environment. As a result, they will likely enhance employment prospects to be promoted higher positions in their career ladder with higher salary packages, compared with their colleagues who are at the same age but lack consistency in their choice. Secondly, if you luckily secure a job that gives you the sense of satisfaction right at the first try, then it is reasonable to spend the rest of your life to pursue that career. For example, many doctors who undertook years of training and gaining many related qualifications when they studied at university often get a very high salary with generous perks and feel so rewarded that they don’t want to lose their jobs.

On the other hand, it is acceptable for some people to change their decision of profession over time. To be more specific, newly graduated students who often face psychosocial crisis based on their personal identity and role confusion have to try many jobs before finally have a defined career path. That is because as you experience a range of jobs, you will gradually realize your advantages as well as your passion on which basis you will have a wise choice for your career. Furthermore, there are various factors that can change people’s decision about a job, such as working conditions, the atmosphere in a workplace or employment prospects.

In conclusion, it is certainly true that having a defined career path early in your life will lead to success, but this is by no means that people should not change their job if they are not satisfied with the company or their role of themselves.

Show More