-
It is inevitable that
traditional cultures will be lost as technology
develops. Technology and
traditional
cultures are incompatible.
To what extent do you agree or disagree
with this view?
Some
people
believe
that
technological
developments
lead
to
the
loss
of
traditional
cultures.
While this may be
true in the case of some societies, others seem to
be unaffected by
technology and the
modern world.
On
the
one
hand,
the
advances
in
technology
that
have
driven
industrialisation
in
developed
countries have
certainly contributed to the disappearance of
traditional ways of life. For
example,
in
pre-industrial
Britain,
generations
of
families
grew
up
in
the
same
small
village
communities. These
communities had a strong sense of identity, due to
their shared customs
and beliefs.
However, developments in transport, communications
and manufacturing led to
the dispersal
of families and village communities as people
moved to the cities in search
of
work.
Nowadays
most
British
villages
are
inhabited
by
commuters,
many of
whom
do
not
know
their closest
neighbours.
On the other
hand, in some parts of the world traditional
cultures still thrive. There are
tribes
in the Amazon Rainforest, for example, that have
been completely untouched by the
technological
developments
of
the
developed
world.
These
tribal
communities
continue
to
hunt
and
gather
food
from
the
forest,
and
traditional
skills
are
passed
on
to
children
by
parents
and
elders.
Other
traditional
cultures,
such
as
farming
communities
in
parts
of
Africa,
are
embracing communications
technologies. Mobile phones give farmers access to
information,
from
weather
predictions
to
market
prices,
which
helps
them
to
prosper
and
therefore
supports
their culture.
In
conclusion, many traditional ways of life have
been lost as a result of advances in
technology, but other traditional
communities have survived and even
flourished.
(260 words, band
9)
Most people have forgotten
the meaning behind traditional or religious
festivals; during
festival periods,
people nowadays only want to enjoy themselves.
To what extent do you agree
or disagree with this opinion?
Some people argue that we no longer
remember the original meaning of festivals, and
that
most of us treat them as
opportunities to have fun. While I agree that
enjoyment seems to
be the priority
during festival times,
I
do
not
agree that
people have
forgotten
what these
festivals mean.
On
the
one
hand,
religious
and
traditional
festivals
have
certainly
become
times
for
celebration. In the UK, Christmas is a
good example of a festival period when people are
most concerned with shopping, giving
and receiving presents, decorating their homes and
enjoying traditional meals with their
families. Most people look forward to Christmas as
a holiday period, rather than a time to
practise religion. Similar behaviour can be seen
during
non-religious
festivals, such as Bonfire Night. People associate
this
occasion with
making
fires,
watching
firework
displays,
and
perhaps
going
to
large
events
in
local
parks;
in other words, enjoyment is
p
eople’s primary goal.
However, I disagree with
the idea that the underlying meaning of such
festivals has been
forgotten. In UK
primary schools, children learn in detail about
the religious reasons for
celebrating
Christmas, Easter and a variety of festivals in
other religions. For example,
in late
December, children sing Christmas songs which have
a religious content, and they
may even
perform nativity plays telling the story of Jesus’
birth. Families also play a
role in
passing knowledge of religious
fes
tivals’ deeper significance on to
the next
generation.
The
same
is
true
for
festivals
that
have
a
historical
background,
such
as
Bonfire
Night or Halloween, in the sense that
people generally learn the stories behind these
occasions at an early age.
In conclusion,
although people mainly want to enjoy themselves
during festivals, I believe
that they
are still aware of the reasons for these
celebrations.
(296 words, band
9)
We cannot help everyone in the world
that needs help, so we should only be concerned
with
our own communities and countries.
To what extent do you agree or disagree
with this statement?
Some people believe that we should not
help people in other countries as long as there
are
problems in our
own
society. I disagree
with
this view because I believe that
we should try
to help as
many people as possible.
On
the one hand, I accept that it is important to
help our neighbours and fellow citizens.
In most communities there are people
who are impoverished or disadvantaged in some way.
It
is possible to
find
homeless people,
for
example, in
even the
wealthiest of
cities,
and
for
those who are concerned about this
problem, there are usually opportunities to
volunteer
time
or
give
money
to
support
these
people.
In
the
UK,
people
can
help
in
a
variety
of
ways,
from donating clothing to serving free
food in a soup kitchen. As the problems are on our
doorstep, and there are obvious ways to
help, I can understand why some people feel that
we should prioritise local charity.
At the same time, I believe
that we have an obligation to help those who live
beyond our
national
borders.
In
some
countries
the
problems
that
people
face
are
much
more
serious
than
those
in
our
own
communities,
and
it
is
often
even
easier
to
help.
For
example,
when
children
are
dying
from
curable
diseases
in
African
countries,
governments
and
individuals
in
richer
countries
can save
lives simply by
paying
for
vaccines
that
already
exist.
A
small
donation
to
an
international
charity
might
have
a
much
greater
impact
than
helping
in
our
local
area.
In
conclusion,
it
is
true
that
we
cannot
help
everyone,
but
in
my
opinion
national
boundaries
should not stop us from helping those
who are in need.
(280 words, band
9)
Some people believe that
hobbies need to be difficult to be enjoyable.
To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
Some
hobbies are relatively easy, while others present
more of a challenge. Personally, I
believe that both types of hobby can be
fun, and I therefore disagree with the statement
that hobbies need to be difficult in
order to be enjoyable.
On
the one hand, many people enjoy easy hobbies. One
example of an activity that is easy
for
most
people
is
swimming.
This
hobby
requires
very
little
equipment,
it
is
simple
to
learn,
and it is inexpensive. I remember
learning to swim at my local swimming pool when I
was a
child, and it never felt like a
demanding or challenging experience. Another hobby
that I
find
easy
and
fun
is
photography.
In
my
opinion,
anyone
can
take
interesting
pictures
without
knowing
too
much
about
the
technicalities
of
operating
a
camera.
Despite
being
straightforward,
taking photos is a satisfying activity.
On the other hand,
difficult hobbies
can
sometimes be
more exciting.
If an activity
is
more
challenging,
we
might
feel
a
greater
sense
of
satisfaction
when
we
manage
to
do
it
successfully. For example, film editing
is a hobby that requires a high level of knowledge
and expertise. In my case, it took me
around two years before I became competent at this
activity,
but
now
I
enjoy
it
much
more
than
I
did
when
I
started.
I
believe
that
many
hobbies
give us more
pleasure when we reach a higher level of
performance because the results are
better and the feeling of achievement
is greater.
In
conclusion,
simple
hobbies
can
be
fun
and
relaxing,
but
difficult
hobbies
can
be
equally
pleasurable for different
reasons.
266
words
Universities should accept equal
numbers of male and female students in every
subject.
To what extent do
you agree or disagree?
In
my opinion, men and women should have the same
educational opportunities. However, I do
not agree with the idea of accepting
equal proportions of each gender in every
university
subject.
Having
the
same
number
of
men
and
women
on
all
degree
courses
is
simply
unrealistic.
Student
numbers
on
any
course depend
on the
applications
that
the
institution receives.
If
a
university
decided to fill courses with equal numbers of
males and females, it would need
enough
applicants of
each
gender.
In
reality,
many
courses
are
more
popular
with
one
gender
than the other, and
it would not be practical to aim for equal
proportions. For example,
nursing
courses tend to attract more female applicants,
and it would be difficult to fill
these
courses if fifty per cent of the places needed to
go to males.
Apart from the
practical concerns expressed above, I also believe
that it would be unfair
to base
admission to university courses on gender.
Universities should continue to select
the best candidates for each course
according to their qualifications. In this way,
both
men
and
women
have
the
same opportunities,
and
applicants
know
that
they
will
be
successful
if
they
work
hard
to
achieve
good
grades
at
school.
If
a
female
student
is
the
best
candidate
for a place on a course, it is surely
wrong to reject her in favour of a male student
with
lower grades or fewer
qualifications.
In conclusion, the
selection of university students should be based
on merit, and it would
be both
impractical and unfair to change to a selection
procedure based on gender.
(265 words,
band 9)
Some people think that instead of
preventing climate change, we need to find a way
to live
with it.
To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
Climate change represents a major
threat to life on Earth, but some people argue
that we
need
to
accept
it
rather
than
try
to
stop
it.
I
completely
disagree
with
this
opinion,
because
I believe that we still have time to
tackle this issue and reduce the human impact on
the
Earth's climate.
There are various measures that
governments and individuals could take to prevent,
or at
least
mitigate,
climate
change.
Governments
could
introduce
laws
to
limit
the
carbon
dioxide
emissions
that
lead
to
global
warming.
They
could
impose
“green
taxes”
on
drivers,
airline
companies and other polluters, and they
could invest in renewable energy production from
solar, wind or water power. As
individuals, we should also try to limit our
contribution
to
climate
change,
by
becoming
more
energy
efficient,
by
flying
less,
and
by
using
bicycles
and
public
transport.
Furthermore,
the
public
can
affect
the
actions
of
governments
by
voting
for
politicians
who
propose
to
tackle
climate
change,
rather
than
for
those
who
would
prefer
to ignore it.
If
instead
of
taking
the
above
measures
we
simply
try
to
live
with
climate
change,
I
believe
that
the
consequences
will
be
disastrous.
To
give
just
one
example,
I
am
not
optimistic
that
we would be able to cope with even a
small rise in sea levels. Millions of people would
be
displaced by flooding, particularly
in countries that do not have the means to
safeguard
low-lying
areas.
These
people
would
lose
their
homes
and
their
jobs,
and
they
would
be
forced
to
migrate
to
nearby
cities
or
perhaps
to
other
countries.
The
potential
for
human
suffering
would be huge, and it is likely that we
would see outbreaks of disease and famine, as well
as increased homelessness and poverty.
In conclusion, it is clear
to me that we must address the problem of climate
change, and
I disagree with those who
argue that we can find ways to live with
it.
323 words
Some
people
who
have
been
in
prison
become
good
citizens
later,
and
it
is
often
argued
that
these are the best people to talk to
teenagers about the dangers of committing a crime.
To what extent do you agree or
disagree?
It
is
true
that
ex-
prisoners
can
become
normal,
productive
members
of
society.
I
completely
agree
with
the
idea
that allowing
such
people
to
speak
to
teenagers
about
their
experiences
is the best way to discourage them from
breaking the law.
In my opinion,
teenagers are more likely to accept advice from
someone who can speak from
experience.
Reformed
offenders
can
tell
young
people
about
how
they
became
involved
in
crime,
the dangers of a
criminal lifestyle, and what life in prison is
really like. They can also
dispel any
ideas that teenagers may have about criminals
leading glamorous lives. While
adolescents
are
often
indifferent
to
the
guidance
given
by
older
people,
I
imagine
that
most
of
them
would
be
extremely
keen
to
hear
the
stories
of
an
ex-
offender.
The
vivid
and
perhaps
shocking nature of these stories is
likely to have a powerful impact.
The
alternatives
to
using
reformed
criminals
to
educate
teenagers
about
crime
would
be
much
less
effective. One option would be for police officers
to visit schools and talk to young
people. This could be useful in terms
of informing teens about what happens to
lawbreakers
when they are caught, but young people
are often reluctant to take advice from figures of
authority. A second option would be for
school teachers to speak to their students about
crime,
but
I
doubt
that
students
would
see
teachers
as
credible
sources
of
information
about
this
topic.
Finally,
educational
films
might
be
informative,
but
there
would
be
no
opportunity for young
people to interact and ask questions.
In
conclusion,
I
fully
support
the
view
that
people
who
have
turned
their
lives
around
after
serving a prison sentence could help to
deter teenagers from committing crimes.
(287 words, band 9)
The older generations tend
to have very traditional ideas about how people
should live,
think
and
behave.
However,
some
people
believe
that
these
ideas
are
not
helpful
in
preparing
younger
generations for modern life.
To what
extent do you agree or disagree with this view?
It
is
true
that
many
older
people
believe
in
traditional
values
that
often
seem
incompatible
with the needs
of younger people. While I agree that some
traditional ideas are outdated,
I
believe that others are still useful and should
not be forgotten.
On the
one hand, many of the ideas that elderly people
have about life are becoming less
relevant for younger people. In the
past, for example, people were advised to learn a
profession and find a secure job for
life, but today’s workers expect much more variety
and diversity from their careers. At
the same time, the ‘rules’ aroun
d
relationships are
being
eroded
as
young
adults
make
their
own
choices
about
who
and
when
to
marry.
But
perhaps
the
greatest
disparity
between
the
generations
can
be
seen
in
their
attitudes
towards
gender
roles.
The
traditional
roles
of
men
and
women,
as
breadwinners
and
housewives,
are
no
longer
accepted as necessary or
appropriate by most younger people.
On
the
other
hand,
some
traditional views
and
values
are
certainly
applicable
to
the
modern
world.
For
example,
older
generations
attach
great
importan
ce
to
working
hard,
doing
one’s
best,
and
taking
pride
in
one’s work,
and
these
behaviours
can
surely
benefit
young
people
as they enter today’s
competitive job market. Other characteristics that
are perhaps seen
as traditional are
politeness and good manners. In our globalised
world, young adults can
expect to come
into contact with people from a huge variety of
backgrounds, and it is more
important
than
ever
to
treat
others
with
respect.
Finally,
I
believe
that
young
people
would
lead
happier
lives
if
the
y
had
a
more
‘old
-
fashioned’
sense
of
community
and
neighbourliness.
In conclusion, although the views of
older people may sometimes seem unhelpful in
today’s
world, we should not dismiss
all traditional ideas as irrelevant.
(299 words, band 9)
Foreign
visitors
should
pay
more
than
local
visitors
for
cultural
and
historical
attractions.
To what extent do you agree
or disagree with this opinion?
It
is
sometimes
argued
that
tourists
from
overseas
should
be
charged
more
than
local
residents
to visit important
sites and monuments. I completely disagree with
this idea.
The argument in
favour of higher prices for foreign tourists would
be that cultural or
historical
attractions
often
depend
on
state
subsidies
to
keep
them
going,
which
means
that
the
resident population already pays money to these
sites through the tax system. However,
I believe this to be a very
shortsighted view. Foreign tourists contribute to
the economy
of
the
host
country
with
the
money
they
spend
on
a
wide
range
of
goods
and
services,
including
food,
souvenirs,
accommodation
and
travel.
The
governments
and
inhabitants
of
every
country
should be happy to subsidise important
tourist sites and encourage people from the rest
of
the world to visit them.
If travellers
realised that they would have to pay more to visit
historical and cultural
attractions in
a particular nation, they would perhaps decide not
to go to that country on
holiday. To
take the UK as an example, the tourism industry
and many related jobs rely on
visitors
coming
to
the
coun
try
to
see
places
like
Windsor
Castle
or
Saint
Paul’s
Cathedral.
These two sites
charge the same price regardless of nationality,
and this helps to promote
the nation’s
cultural heritage. If overseas tourists stopped
coming due to higher prices,
there
would
be
a
risk
of
insufficient
funding
for
the
maintenance
of
these
important
buildings.
In
conclusion,
I
believe
that
every
effort
should
be
made
to
attract
tourists
from
overseas,
and it would be
counterproductive to make them pay more than local
residents.
(269 words, band
9)
When choosing a
job, the salary is the most important
consideration.
To what
extent do you agree or disagree?
Many
people
choose
their
jobs
based
on
the
size
of
the
salary
offered.
Personally,
I
disagree
with
the
idea
that
money
is
the
key
consideration
when
deciding
on
a
career,
because
I
believe
that other factors
are equally important.
On
the one hand, I agree that money is necessary in
order for people to meet their basic
needs. For example, we all need money
to pay for housing, food, bills, health care, and
education. Most people consider it a
priority to at least earn a salary that allows
them
to
cover
these
needs
and
have
a
reasonable
quality
of
life.
If
people
chose
their
jobs
based
on
enjoyment
or
other
non-financial
factors,
they
might
find
it
difficult
to
support
themselves. Artists
and musicians, for instance, are known for
choosing a career path that
they love, but that does
not always provide them with enough money to live
comfortably and
raise a family.
Nevertheless, I believe
that other considerations are just as important as
what we earn in
our jobs. Firstly,
personal relationships and the atmosphere in a
workplace are extremely
important when
choosing a job. Having a good manager or friendly
colleagues, for example,
can make a
huge difference to workers’ levels of happiness
and general quality of life.
Secondly,
many
people’s
feelings
of
job
satisfaction
come
from
their
professional
achievements,
the
skills
they
learn,
and
the
position
they
reach,
rather
than
the
money
they
earn. Finally, some
people choose a career because they want to help
others and contribute
something
positive to society.
In
conclusion, while salaries certainly affect
people’s choice of profession, I do not
believe that money outweighs all other
motivators.
(275 words, band
9)
Some people think that all
teenagers should be required to do unpaid work in
their free
time to help the local
community. They believe this would benefit both
the individual
teenager and society as
a whole.
Do you agree or disagree?
Many young people work on a
volunteer basis, and this can only be beneficial
for both the
individual and society as
a whole. However, I do not agree that we should
therefore force
all teenagers to do
unpaid work.
Most
young
people
are
already
under
enough
pressure
with
their
studies,
without
being
given
the
added responsibility of working in their spare
time. School is just as demanding as a
full-time job, and teachers
expect their students to do homework and exam
revision on top
of
attending
lessons
every
day.
When
young
people
do
have
some
free
time,
we
should
encourage
them
to
enjoy
it
with
their
friends
or
to
spend
it
doing
sports
and
other
leisure
activities.
They have many
years of work ahead of them when they finish their
studies.
At the same time,
I do not believe that society has anything to gain
from obliging young
people to do unpaid
work. In fact, I would argue that it goes against
the values of a free
and fair society
to force a group of people to do something against
their will. Doing this
can only lead to
resentment amongst young people, who
would
feel that
they were being used,
and
parents, who would not want to be told how to
raise their children. Currently, nobody
is forced to volunteer, and this is
surely the best system.
In
conclusion, teenagers may choose to work for free
and help others, but in my opinion we
should not make this compulsory.
(250 words, band 9)
Wild
animals
have
no
place
in
the
21st
century,
so
protecting
them
is
a
waste
of
resources.
To
what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some
people
argue
that
it
is
pointless
to
spend
money
on
the
protection
of
wild
animals
because
we humans have no
need for them. I completely disagree with this
point of view.
In my
opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild animals
have no place in the 21st century.
I
do
not
believe
that
planet
Earth
exists
only
for
the
benefit
of
humans,
and
there
is
nothing
special about this particular century
that means that we suddenly have the right to
allow
or encourage the extinction of
any species. Furthermore, there is no compelling
reason why
we should let animals die
out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every
last square metre
of land in order to feed or accommodate
the world’s population. There is plenty of room
for us to exist side by side with wild
animals, and this should be our aim.
I
also
disagree
with
the
idea
that
protecting
animals
is
a
waste
of
resources.
It
is
usually
the protection of
natural habitats that ensures the survival of wild
animals, and most
scientists agree that
these habitats are also crucial for human
survival. For example,
rainforests
produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and
stabilise the Earth’s climate. If
we
destroyed these areas, the costs of managing the
resulting changes to our planet would
far outweigh the costs of conservation.
By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we
maintain the natural balance of all
life on Earth.
In
conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or
not wild animals should exist, and I
believe that we should do everything we
can to protect them.
(269 words, band
9)
Some people believe that school
children should not be given homework by their
teachers,
whereas others argue that
homework plays an important role in the education
of children.
Discuss both these views
and give your own opinion.
People’s opinions differ as to whether
or not school children should be given homework.
While
there
are
some strong
arguments
against
the
setting
of
homework,
I
still
believe
that
it
is a necessary aspect of education.
There are several reasons
why people might argue that homework is an
unnecessary burden on
children.
Firstly,
there
is
evidence
to
support
the
idea
that
homework
does
nothing
to
improve
educational
outcomes.
Countries
such
as
Finland,
where
school
children
are
not
given
homework,
regularly
top
international
educational
league
tables
and
outperform
nations where
setting
homework
is
the
norm.
Secondly,
many
parents
would
agree
that
the
school
day
is
already
long
enough,
and
leaves
their
children
too
tired
to
do
further
study
when
they
return
home.
Finally,
it
is recognised that play time is just as beneficial
as study time from the perspective
of
brain development.
In spite of the above arguments, I
support the view that homework has an important
role to
play in the schooling of
children. The main benefit of homework is that it
encourages
independent learning and
problem solving, as children are challenged to
work through tasks
alone and at their
own pace. In doing so, students must apply the
knowledge that they have
learnt in the
classroom. For example, by doing mathematics
exercises at home, students
consolidate
their understanding of the concepts taught by
their teacher at school. In my
view,
it
is
important
for
children
to
develop
an
independent
study
habit
because
this
prepares
them to work alone as
adults.
In
conclusion,
homework
certainly
has
its
drawbacks,
but
I
believe
that
the
benefits
outweigh
them in the long term.
(270 words, band
9)
Several
languages
are
in
danger
of
extinction
because
they
are
spoken
by
very
small
numbers
of people. Some
people say that governments should spend public
money on saving these
languages, while
others believe that would be a waste of money.
Discuss both these views and give your
opinion.
It is true that
some minority languages may disappear in the near
future. Although it can
be
argued
that
governments
could
save
money
by
allowing
this
to
happen,
I
believe
that
these
languages should be protected and
preserved.
There are several reasons why saving
minority languages could be seen as a waste of
money.
Firstly, if a language is only
spoken by a small number of people,
expensive
education
programmes will be needed to make sure
that more people learn it, and the state will have
to pay for facilities, teachers and
marketing. This money might be better spent on
other
public
services.
Secondly,
it
would
be
much
cheaper
and
more
efficient
for
countries
to
have
just one language. Governments could
cut all kinds of costs related to communicating
with
each minority group.
Despite the above arguments, I believe
that governments should try to preserve languages
that are less widely spoken. A language
is much more than simply a means of communication;
it
has
a
vital
connection
with
the
cultural
identity
of
the
people
who
speak
it.
If
a
language
disappears, a whole
way of life will disappear with it, and we will
lose the rich cultural
diversity that
makes societies more interesting. By spending
money to protect minority
languages,
governments can also preserve traditions, customs
and behaviours that are part
of a
country’s history.
In
conclusion,
it
may
save
money
in
the
short
term
if
we
allow
minority
languages
to
disappear,
but in the long
term this would have an extremely
negative impact
on our
cultural heritage.
(258
words)
In
many
countries,
a
small
number
of
people
earn
extremely
high
salaries.
Some
people
believe
that
this
is
good
for
the
country,
but
others
think
that
governments
should
not
allow
salaries
above a certain
level.
Discuss both these views and
give your own opinion.
People
have
different
views
about
whether
governments
should
introduce
a
maximum
wage.
While
in
some
ways
it
may
seem
reasonable
to
allow
people
to
earn
as
much
as
companies
are
willing
to
pay,
I
personally
believe
that
employee
remuneration
should
be
capped
at
a
certain
level.
There are
various reasons why it might be considered
beneficial to allow people to be paid
extremely high salaries. If companies
offer excellent pay packages, they can attract the
most talented people in their fields to
work for them. For example, technology companies
like Google are able to employ the best
programmers because of the huge sums that they are
willing to pay. Furthermore, these
well-paid employees are likely to be highly
motivated
to
work
hard
and
therefore
drive
their
businesses
successfully.
In
theory,
this
should
result
in
a thriving economy and increased tax revenues,
which means that paying high salaries
benefits everyone.
However, I agree with those who argue
that there should be a maximum wage. By
introducing
a limit on earnings, the
pay-gap between bosses and employees can be
reduced. Currently,
the
difference
between normal
and
top
salaries
is
huge,
and this
can
demotivate
workers
who
feel
that the situation is unfair. With lower executive
salaries and higher minimum wages,
everybody will be better off. One
possible consequence of greater equality could be
that
poverty and crime rates fall
because the general population will experience an
improved
standard of living.
In conclusion, it seems to
me that it would be better, on balance, for
governments to set
a limit on the wages
of the highest earners in society.
Some
people
believe
that
studying
at
university
or
college
is
the
best
route
to
a
successful
career, while others believe that it is
better to get a job straight after school.
Discuss both views and give your
opinion.
When
they
finish
school,
teenagers
face
the
dilemma
of
whether
to
get
a
job
or
continue
their
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
上一篇：RPF机制在PIM中应用
下一篇：英语音节概述