Type 1: Sample

English is becoming the most prominent language in the world.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of having only one language in
the world? 

It is a fact that English is in an outstanding position in the world as it is used

globally nowadays. This has caused people to think about whether it is beneficial to
have an exclusive language worldwide. Having one language would bring certain
benefits but there will also be some drawbacks.

On the one hand, it is clear that to communicate in one global language would

bring about several advantages. One evident strength is that it would reduce the
language barrier by strengthening greater understanding between countries. In other
words, the flow of information is no longer deterred, thereby promoting learning and
mediating conflicts. Another reason is that it would help to develop a healthier world
economy by enhancing trade facilitation. Last but not least, cultural and religious
discrimination can be reduced to some extent if all people in the world communicate in
the same language.

On the other hand, there are some obvious disadvantages that would

arise. First, globalisation in language terms will undermine cultural diversity. It means
that the special features regarding ways of life and worldviews of each culture would all
be lost if there were only one language. Second, having one global language will
definitely turn this world into a monotonous place without any uniqueness of different
areas. Consequently, people would not be interested in discovering the
world. Finally, this will also be a disadvantageous point for individuals with high
linguistic intelligence since there are no other languages for them to challenge their
brain. 

In conclusion, there are plus points to speak one language globally regarding
better understanding, trade facilitation, and decreasing discrimination. However, the
downside would emerge consequently in terms of the loss of cultural diversity, the lack
of motivation to explore the world, and a minus point for language intelligence.
 Type 2: Sample

English is becoming the most prominent language in the world.

Do the advantages of having only one language in the world outweigh the
disadvantages? 

It is a fact that English is in an outstanding position in the world as it is used

globally nowadays. This has caused people to think about whether it is beneficial to
have an exclusive language worldwide. Having one language would introduce both pros
and cons, but I think that the drawbacks do outweigh the benefits.

On the one hand, it is clear that to communicate in one global language would

bring about several advantages. One evident strength is that it would reduce the
language barrier by strengthening greater understanding between countries. In other
words, the flow of information is no longer deterred, thereby promoting learning and
mediating conflicts. Another reason is that it would help to develop a healthier world
economy by enhancing trade facilitation. Last but not least, cultural and religious
discrimination can be reduced to some extent if all people in the world communicate in
the same language.

On the other hand, I argue that there are some obvious disadvantages that

would make it better not to have a sole language in the world. First, globalisation in
language terms will undermine cultural diversity. It means that the special features
regarding ways of life and worldviews of each culture would all be lost if there were only
one language. Second, having one global language will definitely turn this world into a
monotonous place without any uniqueness of different areas. Consequently, people
would not be interested in discovering the world. Finally, this will also be a
disadvantageous point for individuals with high linguistic intelligence since there are no
other languages for them to challenge their brain. 

In conclusion, there are plus points to speak one language globally. However, it

seems to me that its disadvantages would be more important regarding the loss of
cultural diversity, the lack of motivation to explore the world, and a minus point for
language intelligence.
 Type 3: Sample

English is becoming the most prominent language in the world.

Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

It is a fact that English is in an outstanding position in the world as it is used

globally nowadays. This has caused people to think about whether it is beneficial to
have an exclusive language worldwide. This development/trend is positive thanks to
the benefits which have been brought to human life.

It is clear that to communicate in one global language would bring about many
advantages for the whole society from each individual to the government. One
evident strength for each person is that it would reduce the language barrier, thereby
encouraging people's confidence in interacting with others from different areas of the
world. Many people, especially the elderly, may no longer be afraid of foreign languages
and can freely travel everywhere. In addition, governments can easily enhance
diplomatic activities and discussions with better understanding. This would lead to
numerous subsequent outcomes, such as saving national budget from reducing
enormous translation and interpretation costs of international meetings and
conferences. 

Also, this development will lead to benefits in various areas, especially

economics, education and culture. First, English as a global language would help to
strengthen trade facilitation among nations, thereby developing healthier
economies. Second, when the flow of information is no longer deterred by different
languages, cross-border information exchanges would happen more frequently and
knowledge would be delivered more accurately without problems in translation. Last
but not least, cultural and religious discrimination can be reduced to some extent if all
people in the world communicate in the same language.

In conclusion, globalization in terms of language would show effects on the

positive side. Individuals and governments will be beneficial through better cross-
national communications. Besides, there are many plus points in economics, education
and culture terms.
Name:
Class:

Task

Space travel has been possible for some time and some people believe that space
tourism could be developed in the future.

Do you think it is a positive or negative development?

Write at least 250 words. Use the outline below to help you.

Paragraph 1: Negative side

Idea 1: Operating spaceships requires a lot of energy (from fossil fuels) and releases a
large amount of emissions  deplete the natural resources and cause global warming
 environmental degradation.

Idea 2: Space travelling is dangerous  high accident risks  can cause fatal
consequences.

Paragraph 2: Positive side.

Idea 1: Visiting other countries is now common thanks to international tourism  Space
travelling is much more appealing  helps people enrich their knowledge about the
universe.

Idea 2: Space tourism development could create more job opportunities  reduce
unemployment  benefits the whole society.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Sample: Balanced essay

Some people believe the aim of university education is to help graduates get better
jobs. Others believe there are much wider benefits of university education for both
individuals and society.

Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Opinions differ on whether the purpose of tertiary education is only to improve

job prospects or various areas of human life would benefit in much broader
ways. Personally, I do think both views are reasonable as each has its own merits.

It is certainly true that one of the main aims of studying university is to secure a

better job. The majority of people want to improve their future career prospects and
attending university is one of the best ways to do this as it increases a person’s
marketable skills and attractiveness to potential employers. In addition, further
education is very expensive for many people, so most would not consider it if it would
not provide them with a more secure future and a higher standard of living. Thus, job
prospects are very important.

However, there are other benefits for individuals and society. Firstly, the
independence of living away from home is a benefit because it helps the students
develop better social skills and improve as a person. A case in point is that many
students will have to leave their families, live in halls of residence and meet new
friends. As a result, their maturity and confidence will grow to enable them to live more
fulfilling lives. Secondly, society will gain from the contribution that the graduates can
make to the economy. We are living in a very competitive world, so countries need
educated people in order to compete and prosper.

Therefore, I believe that in addition to the main aim of university education

which is to get the best job, there are clearly further benefits. If we continue to promote
and encourage university attendance, it will lead to a better future for individuals and
society.
Sample: Biased essay

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.

Opinions are divided on whether teenagers should get a job or continue their

education when they finish school. Personally, I am in agreement with the latter view,
even though the other one also shows some obvious advantageous points.

On the one hand, 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 a
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, while joining the world of employment

immediately after high school graduation shows undeniable positive aspects, it seems to
me that students are more likely to be successful in their careers if they continue their
studies beyond school level.

In some countries an increasing number of people are suffering from health problems
as a result of eating too much fast food. It is therefore necessary for governments to
impose a higher tax on this kind of food.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is argued that governments should levy a tariff on junk food because the
number of health risks associated with consuming this kind of food is on the rise. I
completely agree that a higher rate of tax should be paid by fast food companies.

Higher excise on liqueur and cigarettes has proven to be successful at curbing the
harm caused by these substances. This revenue has been used to treat health problems
associated with these products and has proven useful in advertising campaigns warning
people about the dangers of alcohol and tobacco abuse. Tax from fast food could be
used in the same way. The United Kingdom is a prime example, where money from
smokers is used to treat lung cancer and heart disease.

Increasing taxes would raise prices and lower consumption. Fast food companies
would pass on these taxes to consumers in the form of higher prices and this would lead
to people not being able to afford junk food because it is too expensive. Junk food
would soon become a luxury item and it would only be consumed occasionally, which
would be less harmful to the general public’s health. For instance, the cost of organic
food has proven prohibitively expensive for most people and that is why only a small
percentage of the population buy it regularly.

In conclusion, junk food should be taxed at a higher rate because of the good
precedent set by alcohol and tobacco and the fact that the increased cost should reduce
the amount of fast food people buy.
Universities should accept equal numbers of male and female students in every
subject.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Solution 1: Reason – Reason

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.

The first reason for this is because 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.

In addition to the concern 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 would be 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

I believe that it would be both impractical and unfair to change to a selection procedure
based on gender.

Families who send their children to private schools should not be required to pay
taxes that support the state education system.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Solution 2: Reason – Benefits/Effects/Advantages

Some people believe that parents of children who attend private schools should
not need to contribute to state schools through taxes. Personally, I completely disagree
with this view.

For a variety of reasons, it would be wrong to reduce taxes for families who pay
for private education. Firstly, it would be difficult to calculate the correct amount of tax
reduction for these families, and the staff would be required to manage this complex
process. Secondly, we all pay a certain amount of tax for public services that we may
not use. For example, most people are fortunate enough not to have to call the police or
fire brigade at any time in their lives, but they would not expect a tax reduction for
this. Finally, if wealthy families were given a tax discount for sending their children to
private schools, we might have a situation where poorer people pay higher taxes than
the rich.

In my opinion, we should all be happy to pay our share of the money that

supports public schools. It is beneficial for all members of society to have a high-quality
education system with equal opportunities for all young people. This will result in a
well-educated workforce and in turn a more productive and prosperous nation. Parents
of children in private schools may also see the advantages of this in their own lives. For
example, a company owner will need well qualified and competent staff, and a well-
funded education system can provide such employees.

In conclusion, I do not believe that any financial concessions should be made for

people who choose private education.

Foreign visitors should pay more than local visitors for cultural and historical
attractions.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Solution 3: Converse - Reason

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.