雅思考官Simon范文——大作文合集-2019年最新

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 i

s people’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

festivals’ 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’ around 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

importance 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 liv

es if they 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 country

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 education. While there are some benefits to getting a job straight after school, I

would argue that it is better to go to college or university.

The option to start work straight after school is attractive for several reasons. Many

young

people

want

to

start

earning

money

as

soon

as

possible.

In

this

way,

they

can

become independent, and they will be able to afford their own house or start a family.

In

terms of

their

career, young

people who

decide to

find

work,

rather

than

continue

their

studies,

may

progress

more

quickly.

They

will

have

the

chance

to

gain

real

experience and learn practical skills related to their chosen profession. This may lead

to promotions and a successful career.

On the other hand, I believe that it is more beneficial for students to continue their

studies. Firstly, academic qualifications are required in many professions. For example,

it is impossible to become a doctor, teacher or lawyer without having the relevant degree.

As a result, university graduates have access to more and better job opportunities, and

they tend to earn higher salaries than those

with fewer qualifications. Secondly, the

job

market

is

becoming

increasingly

competitive,

and

sometimes

there

are

hundreds

of

applicants for one position in a company. Young people who do not have qualifications

from a university or college will not be able to compete.

For

the

reasons

mentioned

above,

it

seems

to

me

that

students

are

more

likely

to

be

successful in their careers if they continue their studies beyond school level.