CULTURE

86. Some people think that it is important to have a single language as an international official language. Others think that it will make it difficult to identify countries and cause a loss of culture.
What are your opinions on this?

With the advent of globalization, a common language to facilitate trade and communication seems inevitable. Some oppose the development of a single language on the grounds that it may lead to cultural erosion and a loss of local linguistic knowledge. Yet, I am of the opinion that it is possible to use an official international language and still retain one’s own language and culture.

Firstly, many countries already use an official language or languages. For example, in India there are two official languages: Hindi and English. In a country such as India where there are innumerable languages spoken, there is a need for official languages to ensure communication between different sections of the population and the different states. In China, where different dialects are spoken, Mandarin, the official language, enables people from different provinces to comprehend each other.

Secondly, in an age of rampant globalization there is no doubt that an international language is inevitability. How is an African businessman going to conduct business in China when there are such differences between languages? In this sense, not only is an international language inevitable, but also a necessity for trade, commerce and economic expansion in the 21st century.

The critics opposing the adoption of an international official language argue that it would lead to a loss of cultural identity. However, the use of an international official language doesn’t mean that local languages will die out. For example, English already functions as a kind of unofficial international language but this doesn’t mean that people solely converse in English or they neglect their own language. English is used in specific contexts (trade, business, etc) and native languages are used for everyday instruction.

In brief, as the world becomes smaller the need for an official international language seems unavoidable. English has already assumed this role although its status is unofficial. In my view, the use of either an official or unofficial international language is necessary to facilitate communication in a time of rapid globalization.

(330 words)

87. Describe a custom from your country that you would like people from other countries to adopt.
Explain your choice, using specific reasons and examples.

In our modern stressful world we often forget about our customs and traditions. However, I think that people should keep their traditions because they help to remember our forefathers and value the beautiful moments we have in our lives.

In my country we have a great custom called "Maslenica". It is a holiday, which is celebrated at the end of the winter. Many people gather on the biggest square of the city and see of the winter. They say to the winter good-bye and ask the spring to change the winter. They celebrate the beginning of the life when everything starts to grow.

People at this holiday bake pancakes and treat each other with them. Also, many people gathered on the square play different games. For example, the most well-known game "pulling a rope" subsists in that two teams pull a rope. The winner is the team, witch has a longer rope. Other people draw on the icy pole. People have fun at this holiday even if they just observe those games and do not participate.

In conclusion, I am sure that "Maslenica" would benefit many countries all over the world. People have the opportunity to relax, leave their troubles and worries behind and have fun. Also, this holiday helps people to find out more about each other, communicate and meet new people. In addition to those practical benefits, "Maslenica" helps people to slow down their life pace and enjoy the present moments that are irreplaceable and beautiful.(248 words)

88. When people move to another country, some of them decide to follow the customs of the new country.
Others prefer to keep their own customs. Compare these two choices.
Which one do you prefer? Support your answer with specific details.

People may choose to keep their old traditions from their native country or to accept new ones. Keeping the old customs will help one to overcome the cultural shock and the change of the environment. From the other side, accepting the new traditions will help one to adapt and make new friends with residents. In this essay I will give different reasons why people decide to follow the customs of the new country or to keep their own customs.

If one is from the country with strong and old traditions, I think it will be rather difficult for him to adapt to the new customs and moreover to reject his own. That is why some people from the same country try to live together and to create their own community where the old traditions are kept. They can not break the customs that were created by their ancestors. For example, some nations are restricted in certain kinds of food by their traditions. So, they do not go to the restaurants unless their traditional food is served there. Some nations according to their customs have to wear certain types of cloth because their religion tells them to do so.

From the other side, if one is from the country with traditions similar to ones of the new country it will be easy for him to adopt and to follow the customs of the new place. He will not feel much difference. Probably, the most difficult part of his relocation will be to accustom to the new climate.

I think that people of the new country are friendlier when they see that foreigner follows their customs. I belief that traditions of every country deserve respect, especially, when one lives there. In summary, I think that every country has its own beauty and if one wants to find out more about it he will love it.

(313 words)

89. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Modern technology is creating a single world culture.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.

Man, through the ages, has undergone many changes from the time when he depicted a herd of mammoths on the walls of the cave to these days when he can chart with someone on the other side of the globe. Modern technology is rapidly changing the world's living standards that results in creating a single world culture. New technologies including Internet, television, electronic media, means of transportation, etc has a great impact on creating a similar culture all around the globe. Bellow I will list my reasons to support my opinion.

First of all, Internet and e-mail have changed the way people communicate to each other. Internet brought many benefits. It is a new means of communication, a fast access to information and news. People communicate with each other, share their ideas, happiness and difficulties. We have a great opportunity to find out more about countries and their history.

Second of all, the modern means of transportation allows people to move from one place to another very quickly. A few centuries ago it was impossible to imagine waking up in one country and falling asleep in another.

Finally, as a result of all mentioned above the boundaries between countries, their traditions and customs are erased. Many people migrate during their lives. Some of them are looking for a better place to live, others want to get new experience and knowledge or just pleasure. So, many families are created between people from different countries. Traditions fuse and evolve into other ones or just vanish.

To sup up, modern technology has a great impact on the way people live now. It is creating a new single world culture where traditions and distances are no longer of that importance.

(286 words)

DRUG

90. Some businesses now say that no one can smoke cigarettes in any of their offices. Some governments have banned smoking in all public places. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons.

Most of the firms, organization and companies as well as Government make restrictions to smoke in work places and public amenities respectively. It has become fashionable in the world today to blame smoking. However, although I feel that smoking can be harmful, but I don’t think it should be forbidden completely. I would also argue that people should have the right whether they smoke or not.

Let me deal with the three positive sides of smoking. Firstly, smoking certainly helps many people to relax. For some, it even improves concentration. If someone is upset owing to debt or they have exam, like to smoke to reduce the pressure or tension. Most of the people like to smoke when they are relaxing with friends. Secondly, governments throughout the world make huge profits from taxes on cigarettes. The income obtained from taxes provide funds which are used for building school, hospital and public places such as parks, gardens, sports ground and foot paths. Thirdly, tobacco industry also employs tens of thousands of people all over the world, particularly in poorer countries like Zimbabwe or India. Without cigarettes, these people would have no jobs.

Despite these positive effects there are lots of negative effects of smoking too. Initially, smoking has been proven to be too dangerous for health. As one cigarette contain more then 4000 chemical substances, therefore, it causes for many injurious diseases like heart attacks, asthma, bronchitis, lung cancer and cough. According to the current report, in Britain about 3,500 people are killed each year in road accidents and 120,000 are killed by smoking. Furthermore, smoking costs government millions of dollars because of the large number of people who need treatment in hospitals for smoking-related problems. Moreover, there is also concern today about passive smoking. Recent research shows that non-smokers can suffer health problems if they spend long period of time among people who do smoke. In UK children whose parents are smoke are three times as likely to start smoking themselves _.

In short, I think the world would be a better place without cigarettes. However, the decision as to whether _ smoke or not should be for each individual to make. I suggest people should not smoke in a room or place where there are non smokers but surely they should be free to smoke elsewhere.

This a very good essay, you have made your arguments well and set the paragraphs out as required. However, take care with your use of definitive statements e.g. Without cigarettes, these people would have no jobs. Maybe they would gain employment in another industry, we cannot be sure. Over all, well done!

Recently, a hostile debate arouse when a few well reputable health organizations suggested the application of a similar act of heroin selling and usage prohibition _. In this assay, I will analyse why the adoption of such a law could be a breakthrough in our youngsters safety, according to my vision.

Firstly , tobacco does not differ much from heroin when it comes to the later addictive effect. Nicotin , the active ingredient in tobacco, exerts its effect by acting directly on smoker’s brain cells. Numerous experiments carried out by scientist on animals, specailly rats, proved that this toxic chemical does lead by time to dependency, just similar to the effect experienced with herion.

Secondly, restriction on cigerattes selling will surely show an instant decline in tobacco smoking. ” Having an easy access to cigarettes puts a tremendous pressure, specially on teenagers,to resist such a temptation” Dr.Hisham , head of Pschycology department at Alexandria Medical college , states firmly. “Giving the new generation the sense that the severity of smoking is equivilant to other lethal drugs usage woulod be a life saving step,they will thank us for() as they get older.” he continues.

To recapitulate, applying of a futuristic law as the suggested one will definetly have a positive impact ,not only on young people’s health but on our society as a whole.

Well done! This is a very good essay but take care of your spelling.

92. People in all modern societies use drugs, but today's youth are expertimenting with both legal and illegal drugs, and at an increasingly early age. Some sociologists claim that parents and other members of society often set a bad example.
Discuss the causes and some effects of widespread drug use by young people in modern day society. Make any recommendations you feel are necessary to help fight youth drug abuse.

Youth drug abuse is a serious problem nowadays in many cultures. Not only is illegal drug use on the rise, but children as young as 10 years old are experimenting with alcohol and tobacco. The reasons for this behaviour are unclear, but certain sociologists blame the examples set by their elders.

Parents who drink and smoke to excess are, in effect, telling their children that it is acceptable to abuse their bodies with drugs. Consequently, children may have a similar view towards illegal drugs, even if their parents are against their use. In addition, drug use shown on television and in films can only confuse children who are also taught at school that drug abuse is wrong.

The pressure on young people to perform well at school in order to compete for jobs is a possible cause of the problem. Many believe they cannot live up to their parents' expectations, and feel a sense of hopelessness. Also, the widespread availability of drugs means teenagers are faced with the temptation to experiment. Drugs are used as a means of expressing dissatisfaction with the pressures they face in society.

The effects of drug abuse are well known. Many young people's talents are wasted, and addiction to hard drugs can cost a user his or her life. Furthermore, those who drink and drive may be involved in fatal road accidents. The cost to society is great, and enormous amounts of money are spent on convicting drug dealers and on education programmes.

To conclude, I recommend that the only sensible way to solve this problem is to educate young people about the dangers of drug use, and to take steps to reduce the pressure of competition placed upon them.

93. Drug abuse is becoming a problem in our society. What are the causes of this and what are some solutions?

Drug abuse is rife in many countries. Billions of dollars are spent internationally preventing drug use, treating addicts, and fighting drug-related crime. Although drugs threaten many societies, their effects can also be combated successfully. This essay looks at some of the effects of drug use on society, and suggests some solutions to the problem.

Drug abuse causes multiple problems for countries and communities. The medical and psychological effects are very obvious. Addicts cannot function as normal members of society. They neglect or abuse their families, and eventually require expensive treatment or hospitalization. The second effect is on crime. Huge police resources are needed to fight smuggling and dealing. Criminal gangs and mafia underworlds develop with the money from drugs.

However, the menace of drugs can be fought. Education is the first battle. Children need to be told at home and in school about drugs. People need to be aware of the effects so that they can make avoid this problem. A second approach is to increase police manpower and powers to stop dealers and to enforce the law. However the main target should be the user. Families and counselors need to talk to children and people at risk. Parents need to look at their children and help them to Jobs are needed to give people a role in society.

In conclusion, although the problem of drugs may seem impossible to eliminate, there are concrete steps that can be taken to weaken the hold of drugs on society. The danger from drugs is too great to ignore.

Words

94. Should Smoking be Banned?

It has become fashionable in the world today to condemn smoking. However, although I feel that smoking can be harmful, I do not think it should be banned completely.

Let me deal first with the positive side of smoking. First, smoking undoubtedly helps many people to relax. For some, it even improves concentration. Many people like to smoke before exams or when they are relaxing with friends.

A further point is that governments throughout the world make huge profits from levying taxes on cigarettes. This provides funds which are used for building schools, hospitals and other public amenities.

The tobacco industry also employs tens of thousands of people throughout the world, particularly in poorer countries like Zimbabwe or India. Without cigarettes, these people would have no jobs.

I would also argue that people should have the right to choose whether they smoke or not. People should not smoke in a room where there are non-smokers but surely they should be free to smoke elsewhere.

The arguments against smoking are well known. Smoking has been shown to be dangerous to health. Heart disease, bronchitis and lung cancer have all been linked.

A further issue is that smoking costs governments millions of pounds because of the large number of people who need treatment in hospitals for smoking related problems.

There is also concern today about passive smoking. Recent research has shown that non-smokers can suffer health problems if they spend long periods of time among people who do smoke.

In general, I think the world would be a better place without cigarettes. However, the decision as to whether to smoke or not should be for each individual to make.

HEALTH

95. Smokers can cause themselves serious health problems. The choice to smoke is made freely and with knowledge of dangers.
Smokers should therefore expect to pay more for medical treatment than non-smokers.

Everyone has the choice of being a smoker or not. The people who choose to smoke do so knowing there is a risk of causing harmful damage to themselves. However, I do not entirely agree that these people should have to pay more to receive all the medical treatment they need.

I think there are many situations in which a medical problem has nothing to do with whether a person smokes or not. In these cases, where an illness has no relation to smoking, then I believe that smokers should not be required to pay more than other people for their medical treatment. Most car accidents, for example, have no connection with smoking, and the people who are injured ought to have the same medical help, regardless of the cost. And what about the common flu - it does not seem justifiable to me that a smoker should have to pay more to see a doctor for an illness we can all contract.

On the other hand, I agree that a smoker should pay more than a non-smoker for the necessary treatment of any condition which has been caused by smoking. The principle that people should take responsibility for their own actions is a good one. Consequently, if a person chooses to smoke knowing that this habit can cause serious health problems, then there is no reason why the community or an insurance company should have to pay for medical treatment for an illness which could have been avoided.
In many countries, cigarette packets have a clear warning that smoking can cause health problems and so no smoker can claim not to know the danger. Lung cancer is sometimes a fatal disease and the treatment is both lengthy and expensive, and it is unfair for the smoker to expect the hospital or the community to carry the cost. In fact, it could also be argued that those who smoke in public should be asked to pay extra because of the illness caused to passive smokers.

In conclusion, I feel that smokers should pay more in cases related to smoking, but for any other illness they should pay the same as anyone else.

96. Should parents be obliged to immunise their children against childhood diseases?
Or do individuals have the right to choose not to immunise their children?

Some people argue that the state does not have the right to make parents immunise their children. However, I feel the question is not whether they should immunise but whether, as members of society, they have the right not to.

Preventative medicine has proved to be the most effective way of reducing the incidence of fatal childhood diseases. As a result of the widespread practice of immunising young children in our society, many lives have been saved and the diseases have been reduced to almost zero.

In previous centuries children died from ordinary illnesses such as influenza and tuberculosis and because few people had immunity, the diseases spread easily. Diseases such as dysentery were the result of poor hygiene but these have long been eradicated since the arrival of good sanitation and clean water. Nobody would suggest that we should reverse this good practice now because dysentery has been wiped out.

Serious diseases such as polio and smallpox have also been eradicated through national immunisation programmes. In consequence, children not immunised are far less at risk in this disease-free society than they would otherwise be. Parents choosing not to immunise are relying on the fact that the diseases have already been eradicated. If the number of parents choosing not to immunise increased, there would be a similar increase in the risk of the diseases returning.

Immunisation is not an issue like seatbelts which affects only the individual. A decision not to immunise will have widespread repercussions for the whole of society and for this reason, I do not believe that individuals have the right to stand aside. In my opinion immunisation should be obligatory.

* The issue of whether we should force parents to immunise their children against common diseases is, in my opinion, a social rather than a medical question. Since we are free to choose what we expose our bodies to in the way of food, drink, or religion for that matter, why should the question of medical 'treatment' be any different?

Medical researchers and governments are primarily interested in overall statistics and trends and in money-saving schemes which fail to take into consideration the individual's concerns and rights. While immunisation against diseases such as tetanus and whooping cough may be effective, little information is released about the harmful effects of vaccinations which can sometimes result in stunted growth or even death.

The body is designed to resist disease and to create its own natural immunity through contact with that disease. So when children are given artificial immunity, we create a vulnerable society which is entirely dependent on immunisation. In the event that mass immunisation programmes were to cease, the society as a whole would be more at risk than ever before.

In addition there is the issue of the rights of the individual. As members of a society, why should we be obliged to subject our children to this potentially harmful practice? Some people may also be against immunisation on religious grounds and their needs must also be considered.

For these reasons I feel strongly that immunisation programmes should not be obligatory and that the individual should have the right to choose whether or not to participate.

97. "Prevention is better than cure."
Out of a country's health budget, a large proportion should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventative measures.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Of course it goes without saying that prevention is better than cure. That is why, in recent years, there has been a growing body of opinion in favour of putting more resources into health education and preventive measures. The argument is that ignorance of, for example, basic hygiene or the dangers of an unhealthy diet or lifestyle needs to be combatted by special nationwide publicity campaigns, as well as longer-term health education.

Obviously,there is a strong human argument for catching any medical condition as early as possible. There is also an economic argument for doing so. Statistics demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of treating a condition in the early stages, rather than delaying until more expensive and prolonged treatment is necessary. Then there are social or economic costs, perhaps in terms of loss of earnings for the family concerned or unemployed benefit paid by the state.

So far so good, but the difficulties start when we try to define what the 'proportion' of the budget should be, particularly if the funds will be 'diverted from treatment'. Decisions on exactly how much of the total health budget should be spent in this way are not a matter for the non-specialist, but should be made on the basis of an accepted health service model.

This is the point at which real problems occur - the formulation of the model. How do we accurately measure which health education campaigns are effective in both medical and financial terms? How do we agree about the medical efficacy of various screening programmes, for example, when the medical establishment itself does not agree? A very rigorous process of evaluation is called for, so that we can make informed decisions.

Date: 2014-12-22; view: 1293