Today, the high sales of popular consumer goods reflect the power of advertising

and not the real needs of the society in which they are sold. To what extent do
you agree or disagree?
It is true that we are increasingly surrounded by advertising by companies that want to
sell us their products. To some extent I agree that advertising has an impact on sales,
but I would also argue that we do need most of the goods that we buy.
Advertisements can certainly tempt people to buy products that they might not
otherwise want. A good example could be the mobile phone. Every year people can be
seen queuing to buy the latest models, even when they already have a perfectly good
phone that does not need replacing. Perhaps it is the influence of marketing that leads
us to make these kinds of decisions; we want to stay up to date with the latest fashions
or own the newest high-status device. The high sales of the iPhone seem to support this
idea.
On the other hand, I believe that most people do not buy products because of the
advertising alone. There are other good reasons why we make these choices, and there
must be some kind of need before a person makes a purchase. New versions of
products almost always have improved features that buyers may want. A new car, for
example, may have greatly improved safety features, or it may be more economical to
run, or it may pollute less. A new phone may allow the user to communicate more
quickly or effectively, thus enhancing their quality of life.
In conclusion, while advertising obviously influences our buying behaviour, I do not
agree that people make decisions that go against their real needs.
GENERAL ESSAY

Happiness is considered very important in life.

Why is it difficult to define?
What factors are important in achieving happiness?
It is no doubt true that the majority of people would like to be happy in their lives. While
the personal nature of happiness makes it difficult to describe, there do seem to be
some common needs that we all share with regard to experiencing or achieving
happiness.
Happiness is difficult to define because it means something different to each individual
person. Nobody can fully understand or experience another person’s feelings, and we
all have our own particular passions from which we take pleasure. Some people, for
example, derive a sense of satisfaction from earning money or achieving success,
whereas for others, health and family are much more important. At the same time, a
range of other feelings, from excitement to peacefulness, may be associated with the
idea of happiness, and the same person may therefore feel happy in a variety of
different ways.
Although it seems almost impossible to give a precise definition of happiness, most
people would agree that there are some basic preconditions to achieving it. Firstly, it is
hard for a person to be happy if he or she does not have a safe place to live and
enough food to eat. Our basic survival needs must surely be met before we can lead a
pleasant life. Secondly, the greatest joy in life is usually found in shared experiences
with family and friends, and it is rare to find a person who is content to live in complete
isolation. Other key factors could be individual freedom and a sense of purpose in life.
In conclusion, happiness is difficult to define because it is particular to each individual,
but I believe that our basic needs for shelter, food and company need to be fulfilled
before we can experience it.

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?
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 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

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.

Nowadays the way many people interact with each other has changed because of
technology.
In what ways has technology affected the types of relationships that people
make? Has this been a positive or negative development?
It is true that new technologies have had an influence on communication between
people. Technology has affected relationships in various ways, and in my opinion there
are both positive and negative effects.
Technology has had an impact on relationships in business, education and social
life. Firstly, telephones and the Internet allow business people in different countries to
interact without ever meeting each other. Secondly, services like Skype create new
possibilities for relationships between students and teachers. For example, a student
can now take video lessons with a teacher in a different city or country. Finally, many
people use social networks, like Facebook, to make new friends and find people who
share common interests, and they interact through their computers rather than face to
face.
On the one hand, these developments can be extremely positive. Cooperation between
people in different countries was much more difficult when communication was limited
to written letters or telegrams. Nowadays, interactions by email, phone or video are
almost as good as face-to-face meetings, and many of us benefit from these
interactions, either in work or social contexts. On the other hand, the availability of new
communication technologies can also have the result of isolating people and
discouraging real interaction. For example, many young people choose to make friends
online rather than mixing with their peers in the real world, and these ‘virtual’
relationships are a poor substitute for real friendships.
In conclusion, technology has certainly revolutionised communication between people,
but not all of the outcomes of this revolution have been positive.

Some people regard video games as harmless fun, or even as a useful

educational tool. Others, however, believe that video games are having an
adverse effect on the people who play them. In your opinion, do the drawbacks of
video games outweigh the benefits?
Many people, and children in particular, enjoy playing computer games. While I accept
that these games can sometimes have a positive effect on the user, I believe that they
are more likely to have a harmful impact.
On the one hand, video games can be both entertaining and educational. Users, or
gamers, are transported into virtual worlds which are often more exciting and engaging
than real-life pastimes. From an educational perspective, these games encourage
imagination and creativity, as well as concentration, logical thinking and problem
solving, all of which are useful skills outside the gaming context. Furthermore, it has
been shown that computer simulation games can improve users’ motor skills and help
to prepare them for real-world tasks, such as flying a plane.
However, I would argue that these benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks. Gaming
can be highly addictive because users are constantly given scores, new targets and
frequent rewards to keep them playing. Many children now spend hours each day trying
to progress through the levels of a game or to get a higher score than their friends. This
type of addiction can have effects ranging from lack of sleep to problems at school,
when homework is sacrificed for a few more hours on the computer or console. The rise
in obesity in recent years has also been linked in part to the sedentary lifestyle and lack
of exercise that often accompany gaming addiction.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the potential dangers of video games are more
significant than the possible benefits.

In the developed world, average life expectancy is increasing. What problems will
this cause for individuals and society? Suggest some measures that could be
taken to reduce the impact of ageing populations.
It is true that people in industrialised nations can expect to live longer than ever before.
Although there will undoubtedly be some negative consequences of this trend, societies
can take steps to mitigate these potential problems.
As people live longer and the populations of developed countries grow older, several
related problems can be anticipated. The main issue is that there will obviously be more
people of retirement age who will be eligible to receive a pension. The proportion of
younger, working adults will be smaller, and governments will therefore receive less
money in taxes in relation to the size of the population. In other words, an ageing
population will mean a greater tax burden for working adults. Further pressures will
include a rise in the demand for healthcare, and the fact young adults will increasingly
have to look after their elderly relatives.
There are several actions that governments could take to solve the problems described
above. Firstly, a simple solution would be to increase the retirement age for working
adults, perhaps from 65 to 70. Nowadays, people of this age tend to be healthy enough
to continue a productive working life. A second measure would be for governments to
encourage immigration in order to increase the number of working adults who pay
taxes. Finally, money from national budgets will need to be taken from other areas and
spent on vital healthcare, accommodation and transport facilities for the rising numbers
of older citizens.
In conclusion, various measures can be taken to tackle the problems that are certain to
arise as the populations of countries grow older.

Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to
test the safety of other products. Some people argue that these experiments
should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while
others are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
It is true that medicines and other products are routinely tested on animals before they
are cleared for human use. While I tend towards the viewpoint that animal testing is
morally wrong, I would have to support a limited amount of animal experimentation for
the development of medicines.
On the one hand, there are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. To
use a common example of this practice, laboratory mice may be given an illness so that
the effectiveness of a new drug can be measured. Opponents of such research argue
that humans have no right to subject animals to this kind of trauma, and that the lives of
all creatures should be respected. They believe that the benefits to humans do not
justify the suffering caused, and that scientists should use alternative methods of
research.
On the other hand, reliable alternatives to animal experimentation may not always be
available. Supporters of the use of animals in medical research believe that a certain
amount of suffering on the part of mice or rats can be justified if human lives are saved.
They argue that opponents of such research might feel differently if a member of their
own families needed a medical treatment that had been developed through the use of
animal experimentation. Personally, I agree with the banning of animal testing for non-
medical products, but I feel that it may be a necessary evil where new drugs and
medical procedures are concerned.
In conclusion, it seems to me that it would be wrong to ban testing on animals for vital
medical research until equally effective alternatives have been developed.

Some people think that governments should give financial support to creative
artists such as painters and musicians. Others believe that creative artists should
be funded by alternative sources. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
People have different views about the funding of creative artists. While some people
disagree with the idea of government support for artists, I believe that money for art
projects should come from both governments and other sources.
Some art projects definitely require help from the state. In the UK, there are many works
of art in public spaces, such as streets or squares in city centres. In Liverpool, for
example, there are several new statues and sculptures in the docks area of the city,
which has been redeveloped recently. These artworks represent culture, heritage and
history. They serve to educate people about the city, and act as landmarks or talking
points for visitors and tourists. Governments and local councils should pay creative
artists to produce this kind of art, because without their funding our cities would be
much less interesting and attractive.
On the other hand, I can understand the arguments against government funding for art.
The main reason for this view is that governments have more important concerns. For
example, state budgets need to be spent on education, healthcare, infrastructure and
security, among other areas. These public services are vital for a country to function
properly, whereas the work of creative artists, even in public places, is a luxury. Another
reason for this opinion is that artists do a job like any other professional, and they
should therefore earn their own money by selling their work.
In conclusion, there are good reasons why artists should rely on alternative sources of
financial support, but in my opinion government help is sometimes necessary.

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.

Some people think that in the modern world we are more dependent on each
other, while others think that people have become more independent. Discuss
both views and give your own opinion.
People have different views about whether we are more or less dependent on others
nowadays. In my view, modern life forces us to be more independent than people were
in the past.
There are two main reasons why it could be argued that we are more dependent on
each other now. Firstly, life is more complex and difficult, especially because the cost of
living has increased so dramatically. For example, young adults tend to rely on their
parents for help when buying a house. Property prices are higher than ever, and without
help it would be impossible for many people to pay a deposit and a mortgage. Secondly,
people seem to be more ambitious nowadays, and they want a better quality of life for
their families. This means that both parents usually need to work full-time, and they
depend on support from grandparents and babysitters for child care.
However, I would agree with those who believe that people are more independent these
days. In most countries, families are becoming smaller and more dispersed, which
means that people cannot count on relatives as much as they used to. We also have
more freedom to travel and live far away from our home towns. For example, many
students choose to study abroad instead of going to their local university, and this
experience makes them more independent as they learn to live alone. Another factor in
this growing independence is technology, which allows us to work alone and from any
part of the world.
In conclusion, while there are some reasons to believe that people now depend on each
other more, my own view is that we are more independent than ever.

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.
.
Nowadays celebrities are more famous for their glamour and wealth than for their
achievements, and this sets a bad example to young people.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
It is true that some celebrities are known for their glamorous lifestyles rather than for the
work they do. While I agree that these celebrities set a bad example for children, I
believe that other famous people act as positive role models.
On the one hand, many people do achieve fame without really working for it. They may
have inherited money from parents, married a famous or wealthy person, or they may
have appeared in gossip magazines or on a reality TV programme. A good example
would be Paris Hilton, who is rich and famous for the wrong reasons. She spends her
time attending parties and nightclubs, and her behaviour promotes the idea that
appearance, glamour and media profile are more important than hard work and good
character. The message to young people is that success can be achieved easily, and
that school work is not necessary.
On the other hand, there are at least as many celebrities whose accomplishments make
them excellent role models for young people. Actors, musicians and sports stars
become famous idols because they have worked hard and applied themselves to
develop real skills and abilities. They demonstrate great effort, determination and
ambition, which is required for someone who wants to be truly successful in their
chosen field. An example is the actor and martial artist Jackie Chan, who has become
world famous through years of practice and hard work. This kind of self-made celebrity
can inspire children to develop their talents through application and perseverance.

These days more fathers stay at home and take care of their children while
mothers go out to work. What could be the reasons for this? Do you think it is a
positive or a negative development?
It is true that men are increasingly likely to take on the role of househusband, while
more women than ever are the breadwinners in their families. There could be several
reasons for this, and I consider it to be a very positive trend.
In recent years, parents have had to adapt to various changes in our societies. Equal
rights movements have made great progress, and it has become normal for women to
gain qualifications and pursue a career. It has also become socially acceptable for men
to stay at home and look after their children. At the same time, the rising cost of living
has meant that both marriage partners usually need to work and save money before
starting a family. Therefore, when couples have children, they may decide who works
and who stays at home depending on the personal preference of each partner, or based
on which partner earns the most money.
In my view, the changes described above should be seen as progress. We should be
happy to live in a society in which men and women have equal opportunities, and in
which women are not put under pressure to sacrifice their careers. Equally, it seems
only fair that men should be free to leave their jobs in order to assume childcare
responsibilities if this is what they wish to do. Couples should be left to make their own
decisions about which parental role each partner takes, according to their particular
circumstances and needs.
In conclusion, the changing roles of men and women in the family are a result of wider
changes in society, and I believe that these developments are desirable.
In some countries, many more people are choosing to live alone nowadays than
in the past. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?
In recent years it has become far more normal for people to live alone, particularly in
large cities in the developed world. In my opinion, this trend could have both positive
and negative consequences in equal measure.
The rise in one-person households can be seen as positive for both personal and
broader economic reasons. On an individual level, people who choose to live alone may
become more independent and self-reliant than those who live with family members. A
young adult who lives alone, for example, will need to learn to cook, clean, pay bills and
manage his or her budget, all of which are valuable life skills; an increase in the number
of such individuals can certainly be seen as a positive development. From an economic
perspective, the trend towards living alone will result in greater demand for housing.
This is likely to benefit the construction industry, estate agents and a whole host of other
companies that rely on homeowners to buy their products or services.
However, the personal and economic arguments given above can be considered from
the opposite angle. Firstly, rather than the positive feeling of increased independence,
people who live alone may experience feelings of loneliness, isolation and worry. They
miss out on the emotional support and daily conversation that family or flatmates can
provide, and they must bear the weight of all household bills and responsibilities; in this
sense, perhaps the trend towards living alone is a negative one. Secondly, from the
financial point of view, a rise in demand for housing is likely to push up property prices
and rents. While this may benefit some businesses, the general population, including
those who live alone, will be faced with rising living costs.
In conclusion, the increase in one-person households will have both beneficial and
detrimental effects on individuals and on the economy.

More and more people are migrating to cities in search of a better life, but city life
can be extremely difficult. Explain some of the difficulties of living in a city. How
can governments make urban life better for everyone?
Cities are often seen as places of opportunity, but there are also some major drawbacks
of living in a large metropolis. In my opinion, governments could do much more to
improve city life for the average inhabitant.
The main problem for anyone who hopes to migrate to a large city is that the cost of
living is likely to be much higher than it is in a small town or village. Inhabitants of cities
have to pay higher prices for housing, transport, and even food. Another issue is that
urban areas tend to suffer from social problems such as high crime and poverty rates in
comparison with rural areas. Furthermore, the air quality in cities is often poor, due to
pollution from traffic, and the streets and public transport systems are usually
overcrowded. As a result, city life can be unhealthy and stressful.
However, there are various steps that governments could take to tackle these problems.
Firstly, they could invest money in the building of affordable or social housing to reduce
the cost of living. Secondly, politicians have the power to ban vehicles from city centres
and promote the use of cleaner public transport, which would help to reduce both air
pollution and traffic congestion. In London, for example, the introduction of a congestion
charge for drivers has helped to curb the traffic problem. A third option would be to
develop provincial towns and rural areas, by moving industry and jobs to those regions,
in order to reduce the pressure on major cities.
In conclusion, governments could certainly implement a range of measures to enhance
the quality of life for all city residents.

As well as making money, businesses also have social responsibilities. To what

extent do you agree or disagree?
Businesses have always sought to make a profit, but it is becoming increasingly
common to hear people talk about the social obligations that companies have. I
completely agree with the idea that businesses should do more for society than simply
make money.
On the one hand, I accept that businesses must make money in order to survive in a
competitive world. It seems logical that the priority of any company should be to cover
its running costs, such as employees’ wages and payments for buildings and utilities.
On top of these costs, companies also need to invest in improvements and innovations
if they wish to remain successful. If a company is unable to pay its bills or meet the
changing needs of customers, any concerns about social responsibilities become
irrelevant. In other words, a company can only make a positive contribution to society if
it is in good financial health.
On the other hand, companies should not be run with the sole aim of maximising profit;
they have a wider role to play in society. One social obligation that owners and
managers have is to treat their employees well, rather than exploiting them. For
example, they could pay a “living wage” to ensure that workers have a good quality of
life. I also like the idea that businesses could use a proportion of their profits to support
local charities, environmental projects or education initiatives. Finally, instead of trying
to minimise their tax payments by using accounting loopholes, I believe that company
bosses should be happy to contribute to society through the tax system.
In conclusion, I believe that companies should place as much importance on their social
responsibilities as they do on their financial objectives.
Many governments think that economic progress is their most important goal.
Some people, however, think that other types of progress are equally important
for a country.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
People have different views about how governments should measure their countries’
progress. While economic progress is of course essential, I agree with those who
believe that other measures of progress are just as important.
There are three key reasons why economic growth is seen as a fundamental goal for
countries. Firstly, a healthy economy results in job creation, a high level of employment,
and better salaries for all citizens. Secondly, economic progress ensures that more
money is available for governments to spend on infrastructure and public services. For
example, a government with higher revenues can invest in the country's transport
network, its education system and its hospitals. Finally, a strong economy can help a
country’s standing on the global stage, in terms of its political influence and trading
power.
However, I would argue that various other forms of progress are just as significant as
the economic factors mentioned above. In particular, we should consider the area of
social justice, human rights, equality and democracy itself. For example, the treatment
of minority groups is often seen as a reflection of the moral standards and level of
development of a society. Perhaps another key consideration when judging the
progress of a modern country should be how well that country protects the natural
environment, and whether it is moving towards environmental sustainability.
Alternatively, the success of a nation could be measured by looking at the health, well-
being and happiness of its residents.
In conclusion, the economy is obviously a key marker of a country’s success, but social,
environmental and health criteria are equally significant.

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.

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, it might become feasible to introduce higher minimum wages, and everybody
would 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.
Caring for children is probably the most important job in any society. Because of
this, all mothers and fathers should be required to take a course that prepares
them to be good parents. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?
It is true that parents shoulder a huge responsibility and that raising children is by no
means an easy task. However, I completely disagree with the idea that we should
therefore force all mothers and fathers to attend parenting courses.
In my opinion, the idea that all future parents should take a parenthood preparation
course is completely impractical. Many prospective parents have jobs and busy
schedules, and they may not be willing or able to attend regular parenting classes. This
raises the question of whether those who missed the classes, or perhaps refused to
attend, would be punished. I believe that it would be wrong to do this, and it would
therefore be impossible to enforce the idea of compulsory training for parents. Besides,
even if parents could be forced to attend, I doubt that people would agree on what good
parenting entails, and so it would be difficult to create a parenting course to suit
everyone.
As well as being impractical, I would argue that training courses for parents are
unnecessary. Mothers and fathers have been raising children without any formal help or
official interference for thousands of years. Parenting skills are learnt from family
members, friends, neighbours and the surrounding culture. Perhaps more importantly,
adults learn to be good parents by instinct, by trial and error, and by getting to know
their own children; for example, a good parent will try different strategies when faced
with a badly-behaved child, and will gradually develop an understanding of what works
to correct the behaviour. None of this requires the intervention of a taught course.
In conclusion, while compulsory parenting lessons might seem like a good idea, I
believe that such a scheme would be unworkable and largely pointless.

Some people think that employers should not care about the way their employees
dress, because what matters is the quality of their work. To what extent do you
agree or disagree?
In the modern workplace, dress codes are changing as employers focus more on
results than on the rules that employees must follow. While I agree that the way people
dress should be seen as irrelevant in many work contexts, I believe that dress codes
still exist for good reason in certain professions.
On the one hand, many employers have stopped telling their staff how to dress, and I
see this as a positive trend. Some of the most successful companies in the world,
including technology giants like Google and Facebook, are famous for the relaxed office
environments that they try to create. Employees are encouraged to dress casually, and
even the company executives and leaders are rarely seen wearing anything other than
T-shirts and jeans. However, while managers and programmers are free to dress how
they like, they are expected to produce work of outstanding quality. It is clear from the
performance and global dominance of such companies that strict dress codes are
completely unnecessary in the technology sector.
However, I would also argue that rules regarding employees' clothing are still relevant in
other work situations. We expect certain professionals, such as nurses, police officers
and airline pilots, to wear uniforms. These uniforms may have a practical or safety
function, but perhaps more importantly they identify the person’s position or role in
society. Similarly, a lawyer, politician or school principal may choose to wear formal
clothing in order to portray an image of authority, trustworthiness and diligence. I believe
that most of us prefer to see these professionals in smart, formal attire, even if it is not
strictly necessary.
In conclusion, I support the trend towards relaxed dress codes for workers, but I do not
see it as applicable to all occupations or sectors of the economy.

Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They
say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal
requirement.
To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their
waste?
It is true that we do not recycle enough of our household waste. Although I accept that
new legislation to force people to recycle could help this situation, I do not agree that a
recycling law is the only measure that governments should take.
In my view, a new recycling law would be just one possible way to tackle the waste
problem. Governments could make it a legal obligation for householders to separate all
waste into different bins. There could be punishments for people who fail to adhere to
this law, ranging from a small fine to community service, or even perhaps prison
sentences for repeat offenders. These measures would act as a deterrent and
encourage people to obey the recycling law. As a result, the improved behaviour of
homeowners could lead to a clean, waste-free environment for everyone.
However, I believe that governments should do more than simply introduce a recycling
law. It might be more effective if politicians put education, rather than punishment, at the
centre of a recycling campaign. For example, children could be taught about recycling in
schools, and homeowners could be informed about the environmental impact of
household waste. Another tactic that governments could use would be to create stricter
regulations for the companies that produce the packaging for household products.
Finally, money could also be spent to improve recycling facilities and systems, so that
waste is processed more effectively, regardless of whether or not people separate it
correctly in the home.
In conclusion, perhaps we do need to make recycling a legal requirement, but this
would certainly not be the only way to encourage people to dispose of their waste more
responsibly.
In many cities the use of video cameras in public places is being increased in
order to reduce crime, but some people believe that these measures restrict our
individual freedom.
Do the benefits of increased security outweigh the drawbacks?
It is true that video surveillance has become commonplace in many cities in recent
years. While I understand that critics may see this as an invasion of privacy, I believe
that the benefits do outweigh the drawbacks.
There are two main reasons why people might disapprove of the use of video cameras
in public places. The first objection is that these cameras invade our privacy, in the
sense that we are constantly being watched by the authorities or by private security
firms. Many people find this intrusive and feel that the recording of their movements is a
form of state control that curtails their individual freedom. The second argument against
the proliferation of CCTV cameras is that they are being used as an alternative to police
officers patrolling the streets. If this is indeed happening, then it is unlikely that members
of the public will feel safer.
In spite of the drawbacks mentioned above, I believe that the use of video cameras to
monitor public areas is a positive measure. The key objective of video surveillance is to
deter criminals and to prevent crime. For example, petty criminals like shoplifters and
pickpockets are less likely to operate in parts of cities where they know that they are
being watched. At the same time, when crimes are committed, the police can use video
evidence to catch and prosecute offenders. Therefore, in my view, video cameras offer
valuable support to police officers, and they make cities safer for inhabitants, workers
and visitors alike.
In conclusion, it seems to me that we gain more than we lose from the enhanced
security that CCTV cameras bring to our cities.

Some parents buy their children whatever they ask for, and allow their children to
do whatever they want. Is this a good way to raise children? What consequences
could this style of parenting have for children as they get older?
It is true that some parents are overly permissive and tend to spoil their children. In my
opinion, this is not a good parenting style, and it can have a range of negative long-term
consequences.
If parents want to raise respectful and well-behaved children, I believe that a certain
amount of discipline is necessary. Having worked with children myself, I have learnt that
clear expectations and boundaries are necessary, and it is important to be able to say
‘no’ to children when they misbehave or try to push against these boundaries. This is
the only way to help young people to regulate their desires and develop self-control. In
my view, parents who do the opposite and constantly give in to their children’s
demands, are actually doing more harm than good. They are failing their children rather
than being kind to them.
The children of indulgent or lenient parents are likely to grow up with several negative
personality traits. The first and most obvious danger is that these children will become
self-centred adults who show little consideration for the feelings or needs of others. One
consequence of such an attitude could be that these adults are unable to work
successfully in teams with other colleagues. A second negative trait in such people
could be impulsiveness. A person who has never lived with any boundaries is likely to
lack the patience to carefully consider options before making decisions. This may lead,
for example, to compulsive shopping, unwise financial decisions, or even criminal
activity.
In conclusion, parents should help their children to develop self-control and respect for
others, and I do not believe that the permissive parenting style supports this objective.

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 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
EDUCATION

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.

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.

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 lives 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.

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.

Some people think that all university students should study whatever they like.
Others believe that they should only be allowed to study subjects that will be
useful in the future, such as those related to science and technology.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
People have different views about how much choice students should have with regard
to what they can study at university. While some argue that it would be better for
students to be forced into certain key subject areas, I believe that everyone should be
able to study the course of their choice.
There are various reasons why people believe that universities should only offer
subjects that will be useful in the future. They may assert that university courses like
medicine, engineering and information technology are more likely to be beneficial than
certain art degrees. From a personal perspective, it can be argued that these courses
provide more job opportunities, career progression, better salaries, and therefore an
improved quality of life for students who take them. On the societal level, by forcing
people to choose particular university subjects, governments can ensure that any
knowledge and skill gaps in the economy are covered. Finally, a focus on technology in
higher education could lead to new inventions, economic growth, and greater future
prosperity.
In spite of these arguments, I believe that university students should be free to choose
their preferred areas of study. In my opinion, society will benefit more if our students are
passionate about what they are learning. Besides, nobody can really predict which
areas of knowledge will be most useful to society in the future, and it may be that
employers begin to value creative thinking skills above practical or technical skills. If this
were the case, perhaps we would need more students of art, history and philosophy
than of science or technology.
In conclusion, although it might seem sensible for universities to focus only on the most
useful subjects, I personally prefer the current system in which people have the right to
study whatever they like.

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 of 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.

Some universities now offer their courses on the Internet so that people can
study online. Is this a positive or negative development?
It is true that online courses are becoming a common feature of university education.
Although there are some drawbacks of Internet-based learning, I would argue that there
are far more benefits.
The main drawback of the trend towards online university courses is that there is less
direct interaction. Students may not have the opportunity to engage face-to-face with
their teachers, and will instead have to rely on written forms of communication.
Similarly, students who study online do not come into direct contact with each other,
and this could have a negative impact on peer support, discussion and exchange of
ideas. For example, whereas students on traditional courses can attend seminars and
even discuss their subjects over coffee after lessons, online learners are restricted to
chatting through website forum areas. These learners may also lack the motivation and
element of competition that face-to-face group work brings.
Despite the negatives mentioned above, I believe that online university courses are a
positive development for various reasons. Firstly, they allow learners to study in a
flexible way, meaning that they can work whenever and wherever is convenient, and
they can cover the material at their own pace. Secondly, the cost of a university
education can be greatly reduced, while revenues for institutions may increase as more
students can be taught. Finally, online learning offers open access to anybody who is
willing to study, regardless of age, location, ability and background. For example, my
uncle, who is 65 years old, has recently enrolled on an online MBA course in a different
country, which would have been impossible in the days before Internet-based
education.
In conclusion, while I recognise the possible disadvantages of online learning, I consider
it to be a positive development overall.
TECHNOLOGY

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. I partly agree with this assertion; while it 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.

Many people prefer to watch foreign films rather than locally produced films. Why
could this be?
Should governments give more financial support to local film industries?
It is true that foreign films are more popular in many countries than domestically
produced films. There could be several reasons why this is the case, and I believe that
governments should promote local film-making by subsidising the industry.
There are various reasons why many people find foreign films more enjoyable than the
films produced in their own countries. Firstly, the established film industries in certain
countries have huge budgets for action, special effects and to shoot scenes in
spectacular locations. Hollywood blockbusters like ‘Avatar’ or the James Bond films are
examples of such productions, and their global appeal is undeniable. Another reason
why these big-budget films are so successful is that they often star the most famous
actors and actresses, and they are made by the most accomplished producers and
directors. The poor quality, low-budget filmmaking in many countries suffers in
comparison.
In my view, governments should support local film industries financially. In every
country, there may be talented amateur film-makers who just need to be given the
opportunity to prove themselves. To compete with big-budget productions from
overseas, these people need money to pay for film crews, actors and a host of other
costs related to producing high-quality films. If governments did help with these costs,
they would see an increase in employment in the film industry, income from film sales,
and perhaps even a rise in tourist numbers. New Zealand, for example, has seen an
increase in tourism related to the 'Lord of the Rings' films, which were partly funded by
government subsidies.
In conclusion, I believe that increased financial support could help to raise the quality of
locally made films and allow them to compete with the foreign productions that currently
dominate the market.

Some people think that strict punishments for driving offences are the key to
reducing traffic accidents. Others, however, believe that other measures would be
more effective in improving road safety. Discuss both these views and give your
own opinion.
People have differing views with regard to the question of how to make our roads safer.
In my view, both punishments and a range of other measures can be used together to
promote better driving habits.
On the one hand, strict punishments can certainly help to encourage people to drive
more safely. Penalties for dangerous drivers can act as a deterrent, meaning that
people avoid repeating the same offence. There are various types of driving penalty,
such as small fines, licence suspension, driver awareness courses, and even prison
sentences. The aim of these punishments is to show dangerous drivers that their
actions have negative consequences. As a result, we would hope that drivers become
more disciplined and alert, and that they follow the rules more carefully.
On the other hand, I believe that safe driving can be promoted in several different ways
that do not punish drivers. Firstly, it is vitally important to educate people properly before
they start to drive, and this could be done in schools or even as part of an extended or
more difficult driving test. Secondly, more attention could be paid to safe road design.
For example, signs can be used to warn people, speed bumps and road bends can be
added to calm traffic, and speed cameras can help to deter people from driving too
quickly. Finally, governments or local councils could reduce road accidents by investing
in better public transport, which would mean that fewer people would need to travel by
car.
In conclusion, while punishments can help to prevent bad driving, I believe that other
road safety measures should also be introduced.
Extreme sports such as sky diving and skiing are very dangerous and should be
banned. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?
In recent years, extreme sports have become increasingly popular, and some people
argue that governments should prohibit them. I completely disagree with the idea that
these sports are too dangerous, and I therefore believe that they should not be banned.
In my opinion, so-called extreme sports are not as dangerous as many people think. All
sports involve some element of risk, and there should always be clear regulations and
safety procedures to reduce the possibility of accidents. People who take part in
extreme sports are usually required to undergo appropriate training so that the dangers
are minimised. For example, anyone who wants to try skydiving will need to sign up for
lessons with a registered club, and beginners are not allowed to dive solo; they must be
accompanied by an experienced professional. Finally, the protective equipment and
technology used in sports from motor racing to mountain climbing is constantly
improving safety.
While I support regulations and safety measures, I believe that it would be wrong, and
almost impossible, to ban extreme sports. In the first place, we should all be free to
decide how we spend our leisure time; as long as we understand the risks, I do not
believe that politicians should stop us from enjoying ourselves. However, an even
stronger argument against such a ban would be the difficulty of enforcing it. Many of the
most risky sports, like base jumping or big wave surfing, are practised far away from the
reach of any authorities. I cannot imagine the police being called to stop people from
parachuting off a mountain face or surfing on an isolated beach.

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.

Explain some of the ways in which humans are damaging the environment. What
can governments do to address these problems? What can individual people do?
Humans are responsible for a variety of environmental problems, but we can also take
steps to reduce the damage that we are causing to the planet. This essay will discuss
environmental problems and the measures that governments and individuals can take
to address these problems.
Two of the biggest threats to the environment are air pollution and waste. Gas
emissions from factories and exhaust fumes from vehicles lead to global warming,
which may have a devastating effect on the planet in the future. As the human
population increases, we are also producing ever greater quantities of waste, which
contaminates the earth and pollutes rivers and oceans.
Governments could certainly make more effort to reduce air pollution. They could
introduce laws to limit emissions from factories or to force companies to use renewable
energy from solar, wind or water power. They could also impose ‘green taxes’ on drivers
and airline companies. In this way, people would be encouraged to use public transport
and to take fewer flights abroad, therefore reducing emissions.
Individuals should also take responsibility for the impact they have on the environment.
They can take public transport rather than driving, choose products with less packaging,
and recycle as much as possible. Most supermarkets now provide reusable bags for
shoppers as well as ‘banks’ for recycling glass, plastic and paper in their car parks. By
reusing and recycling, we can help to reduce waste.
In conclusion, both national governments and individuals must play their part in looking
after the environment.