-
C10-T1
It is important for
children to learn the difference between right and
wrong at the early age. Punishment is
necessary to help them learn
this
distinction.
To what extent
do you agree or disagree with this opinion
What sort of punishment
should parents and teachers be allowed
to use to teach good behavior to
children
One
important
stage
in
a
child’s
growth
is
certainly
the
development
of
a
conscience,
which
is
linked
to
the
ability
to
tell
right
from
wrong.
This
skill
comes
with
time
and
good
parenting,
and my
?
rm conviction is that
punishment does not have much of a
role
to play in this. Therefore I have to disagree
almost entirely with
the given
statement.
To some extent
the question depends on the age of the child. To
punish a very young child is both wrong
and foolish, as an infant will
not
understand
what
is
happening
or
why
he
or
she
is
being
punished. Once the age of reason is
reached however, a child can
be
rewarded
for
good
behaviors
and
discouraged
from
bad.
This
kind
but
?
rm approach will
achieve more than harsh punishments,
which might entail many negative
consequences unintended by the
parents.
To
help
a
child
learn
the
difference
between
right
and
wrong,
teachers and parents
should
?
rstly provide good
role modeling in
their
own
behavior
.
After
that,
if
sanctions
are
needed,
the
punishment
should
not
be
of
a
physical
nature,
as
that
merely
sends
the
message
that
it
is
acceptable
for
larger
people
to
hit
smaller
ones
-
an
outcome
which
may
well
result
in
the
child
starting to bully
others. Nor should the punishment be in any way
cruel.
Rather,
teachers
and
parents
can
use
a
variety
of
methods
to
discipline
their
young
charges,
such
as
detention,
withdrawal
of
privileges, and time-out.
Making the punishment fit the crime is a
useful
notion,
which
would
see
children
being
made
to
pick
up
rubbish
they
have
dropped,
clean
up
graf
?
ti
they
have
drawn,
or
apologise to someone they
have hurt. in these ways responsibility
is
developed
in
the
child,
which
leads
to
much
better
future
behaviour than does punishment.
C10-T3
Countries are becoming more and more
similar because people are
able to buy
the same products anywhere in the world.
Do you think this is a positive or
negative development.
Give reasons for
your answer and include any relevant examples
from your own knowledge or experience.
It is said that countries
are becoming similar to each other because
of the global spread of the same
products, which are now available
for
purchase almost anywhere. I strongly believe that
this modern
development
is
largely
detrimental
to
culture
and
traditions
worldwide.
A country‘s history,
language and ethos are all inextricably bound
up
in
its
manufactured
artifacts
.
If
the
relentless
advance
of
international brands into
every corner of the world continues, these
bland
packages
might
one
day
completely
oust
the
traditional
objects of a nation, which would be a
loss of richness and diversity
in the
world, as well as the sad disappearance of the
manifestations
of
a
pl
ace’s character.
What
would
a
Japanese
tea ceremony
be
without its specially crafted teapot,
or a Fijian kava ritual without its
bowl made from a certain type of tree
bark?
Let us not forget
either that traditional products, whether these be
medicines,
cosmetics
，
toys,
clothes,
utensils
or
food.
provide
employment for local people. The spread
of multinational products
can often
bring in its wake a loss of jobs, as people turn
to buying
the
new
brand,
perhaps
thinking
it
more
glamorous
than
the
one
they are
used to. This eventually puts old-school
craftspeople out of
work.
Finally
,
tourism
numbers
may
also
be
affected,
as
travelers
become
disillusioned with l
?
nding
every place just the same as the
one
they visited previously. To see the same products
in shops the
world
over
is
boring.
and
does
not
impel
visitors
to
open
their
wallets
in
the
same
way
that
trinkets
or
souvenirs
unique
to
the
particular
area do.
Some may argue
that all people are entitled to have access to the
same products, but I say that local
objects suit local conditions best,
and
that faceless uniformity worldwide is an unwelcome
and dreary
prospect.
C9-T1
Some experts believe
that it is better for children to begin learning a
foreign language at primary school
rather than secondary school.
Do the advantages of this outweigh the
disadvantages
Traditionally.
children
have
begun
studying
foreign
languages
at
secondary school, but introducing them
earlier is recommended by
some
educationalists. This policy
has
been
adopted
by
some
educational
authorities
or
individual
schools, with
both positive and negative outcomes.
The obvious argument in its favour is
that young children pick up
languages
much more easily than teenagers. Their brains are
still
programmed
to
acquire
their
mother
tongue,
which
facilitates
learning
another
language,
and
unlike
adolescents,
they
are
not
inhibited by self-consciousness.
The
greater
flexibility
of
the
primary
timetable
allows
for
more
frequent, shorter sessions and for a
play
—
centred approach, thus
maintaining learners’ enthusiasm and
progress. Their command of
the language
in later life will bene
?
t
from this early exposure, while
learning
other
languages
subsequently
will
be
easier
for
them.
They
may also gain a better understanding of other
cultures.
There are,
however, some disadvantages. Primary school
teachers
are
generalists,
and
may
not
have
the
necessary
language
skills
themselves.
If
specialists
have
to
be
brought
in
to
deliver
these
sessions, the flexibility
referred
to
above
is
diminished. If
primary
language
teaching
is
not
standardized
,
secondary
schools
could
be faced with a great
variety of levels in different languages within
their intake, resulting in a classroom
experience which undoes the
earlier
gains. There is no advantage if enthusiastic
primary pupils
become
demotivated
as
soon
as
they
change
schools.
However,
these
issues
can
be
addressed
strategically
within
the
policy
adopted.
Anything
which
encourages
language
learning
benefits
society
culturally
and
economically,
and
early
exposure
to
language
learning
contributes to this. Young children's innate
abilities should
be harnessed to make
these benefits more achievable.
C9-T3
Some people says that
the best way to improve public health is by
increasing the number of sports
facilities. Others, however, say that
this
would
have
little
effect
on
public
health
and
that
other
measures are required.
Discuss both these views and give your
opinion.
A problem of
modern societies is the declining level of health
in the
general
population,
with
conflicting
views
on
how
to
tackle
this
worrying
trend.
One
possible
solution
is
to
provide
more
sports
facilities to
encourage a more active lifestyle.
Advocates
of
this
believe
that
today’s
sedentary
lifestyle
and
stressful working conditions mean that
physical activity is no longer
part
of
either
our
work
or
our
leisure
time.
If
there
were
easy-
to-reach
local
sports
centres,
we
would
be
more
likely
to
make exercise a regular
part of our lives, rather than just collapsing
in front of a screen every evening. The
variety of sports that could
be offered
would cater for all ages, levels of fitness and
interests:
those with painful memories
of PE at school might be happier in the
swimming pool than on the football
pitch.
However,
there
may
be
better
ways
of
tackling
this
problem.
Interest in sport
is
not
universal,
and
additional
facilities
might
simply
attract
the
already fit, not those
who most need them. Physical activity could
be
encouraged
relatively
cheaply,
for
example
by
installing
exercise
equipment
in
parks,
as
my
local
council
has
done.
This
has
the
added
benefit
that
parents
and
children
often
use
them
together
just for fun, which develops a positive attitude
to exercise
at an early age.
As well as physical activity, high tax
penalties could be imposed on
high-fat
food
products,
tobacco
and
alcohol,
as
excessive
consumption
of
any
of
these
contributes
to
poor
health.
Even
improving public
transport would help: it takes longer to walk to
the
bus stop than to the car.
In
my
opinion,
focusing
on
sports
facilities
is
too
narrow
an
approach and would not have the desired
results. People should be
encouraged
not only to be more physically active but also to
adopt
a healthier lifestyle in general.
C8-T1
Some
people think that parents should teach children
how to be a
good members of society.
Others ,however ,believe that school is
the place to learn this.
Discuss both these views and give your own
opinion.
A child‘s
education has never been about learning
information‘ and
basic
skills
only.
It
has
always
included
teaching
the
next
generation
how
to
be
good
members
of
society.
Therefore.
this
cannot be the responsibility of the
parents alone.
In
order
to
be
a
good
member
of
any
society
the
individual
must
respect
and
obey
the
rules
of
their
community
and
share
their
values.
Educating
children
to
understand
the
need
to
obey
rules
and respect others
always begins in the home and is widely thought
to be the responsibility of parents.
They will certainly be the first to
help children learn what is important
in life, how they are expected
to
behave and what role they will play in their
world.
However. learning
to understand and share the value system of a
whole society cannot be achieved just
in the home. Once a child
goes
to
school.
they
are
entering
a
wider
community
where
teachers
and
peers
will
have
Just
as
much
influence
as
their
parents do at home. At
school. children will experience working and