Past: In the past people in the UAE used to eat healthy, freshly prepared food with their families in the home. Present: Today however, many people, particularly young people, prefer to eat fast food such as hamburgers, fried chicken, shawarma, or pizza. TOPIC SENTENCE: There are many reasons why this change has occurred, but fast-food also has some serious effects on individuals and society.
Causes Topic Sentence: There are many reasons for the popularity of fast food. Cause 1: One of the main reasons is the change in lifestyle. Example 1a: Many people in the UAE are working long hours, shifts, or extended school days. They donít have time to find ingredients or prepare good food. Example 1b: Women are now starting to work in the Emirates, and this can result in less time being available for preparing family meals. Cause 2: Another cause is the huge number of young, affluent people in the UAE. Example 2: The rapid development of the country has meant that young people, who comprise over 75% of the population, have money to spend. Cause 3: A third reason is advertising. Example 3: The UAE is a very modern, free-market country, with all forms of media such as the Internet and satellite television, and people like to try new products and different kinds of fast food.
Effects Topic Sentence: However, this change in diet can have some serious effects. Effect 1: One effect is on health. Example 1: Many individuals in the UAE are becoming obese. These people will be less productive and have conditions such as heart disease and diabetes. Effect 2: Another result of fast food is the loss of the family tradition of eating together. Example 2: Children and adults rarely eat together now, and thus get less opportunity to talk. Effect 3: A further effect is economic. Example 3a: Although fast food is not very expensive, it is more expensive than cooking properly for yourself. Example 3b: Many of the fast-food companies are franchisees of foreign corporations, so profits leave the country.
Conclusion: Summary: In conclusion, fast food, although it is convenient and a tasty addition to a diet, can have serious health and social effects. Future statement: People should learn to choose fast food carefully and remember the pleasure of eating good food in good company.
81. Without capital punishment (the death penalty) our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment in essential to control violence in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Before talking about the essential role of death penalty, you have to think about the meaning, and the purpose, of any kind of punishment. If you consider that the purpose is to prevent the guilty from being nasty again, you can be seduced by an argumentation in favour of the suppression of capital punishment. But you have to think about another aspect of the problem: a punishment is also useful to impress people, to make them fear the law. In fact, let's take the example of a young misfit, which has grown in a violent atmosphere, influenced by older delinquents, etc ... He lives in the streets, he's got no aim but to survive. This is the kind of person who could possibly kill someone for money, or even for fun ... Why would he fear prison? Life would be easier for him there. In addition, in many cases, when you behave normally, you can benefit from penalty reductions. This young misfit needs to be impressed, he needs to know that the law is a frontier. When you cross it, you can lose your life. That is why capital punishment helps keeping a distance between robbery and murder. If you abolish it, you suppress the difference between these two types of crime, which are completely different.
But there is also a limit to define: even if death penalty is unavoidable, it would be a crime to apply it to inadequate cases. If there is no premeditation or past facts which can justify such a punishment, it is far too strict to apply death penalty. That is why the lawmakers have to establish precisely the context in which capital punishment car be pronounced. That is the price to pay to limit violence without using excessive violence.
Capital punishment is always associated with ignorance and intolerance. In fact, we must acknowledge that some people disagree with this kind of penalty but others are totally in favour. Portugal was the first European country to end this kind of penalty. Since the 19th century, tolerance and respect for life are important values. Moreover, we can affirm that all the Europe remains under the same codes. Maybe because of a religious view point, life respect is a typical value in the Old Catholic world.
Those who are in favour of capital punishment are particularly in radical countries. It is not surprising to watch some barbarian behaviours in Islamic countries like public stoning to death. The population is invited to participate on the trial and in the final sentence - death- itself. However, this is not just an image of third world countries. Actually, USA is where this kind of punishment has its higher rates. The state of Texas, in particular, is at the top, supporting this measure against crime, especially those related with serial killers and those involving children. In a society dominated by fear and government control, it is foreseen that this penalty will continue into a future next.
Maybe this is not a clear question. As we can see there are several values here and of course cultural behaviours. The roots of the question are religious, cultural, ethical and even geographical. The world is divided and the law systems show those divisions. The solutions, however can lead us to other questions concerning revenge and justice. It will be better to kill a person because of his crimes? Can we admit that life sentence could be a much better sentence? In fact, rehabilitation is the right way especially with an accurate psychological evaluation first. Some people are lost forever, and in my opinion some murderers and other perverted people will suffer more in jail. In this sense, capital punishment is a soft release.
This is a very good essay, you should do well in the Task 2 Writing Test. FAMILY
82. In some countries, marriages are arranged by the parents but in other cases, people choose their own marriage partner. Discuss both systems.
The idea that a marriage should be arranged by the parents of the couple, or by other members-of the family, is quite acceptable to some societies, yet completely out of the question for others. It all depends on your cultural expectations.
In so-called western societies, it is very unusual for marriages to be arranged. Most young people would not welcome the idea that their parents have the right to choose their partner for life. They feel that arranged marriages deny them their fundamental right to choose, even if they make a bad decision.
However, if we are honest about it, we might acknowledge that some parents organise their children's lives in such a way that they are likely to meet and marry partners the parents approve o£ It could be said that this is, to some extent, similar to an arranged marriage. It is always better when families support the relationship and welcome the grandchildren.
People for whom arranged marriages are the cultural norm often argue that the likelihood of the marriage lasting is greater when it is set up in this manner. Parents can be assured that their children are joining a family of similar standing and cultural background, and this, in the long run, makes for a more stable society if your parents' marriage was arranged, and has worked well, then why should you question the custom?
The important thing to ensure is that people are never forced into a marriage which will make them unhappy or lead to an unequal relationship where one partner is exploited by the other. This applies in all societies and situations.
83. Many people believe that women make better parents than men and that this is why they have the greater role in raising children in most societies. Others claim that men are just as good as women at parenting. Write an essay expresing your point of view.
The view that women are better parents than men has shown itself to be true throughout history. This is not to say that men are not of importance in child- rearing indeed, they are most necessary if children are to appreciate fully the roles of both sexes. But women have proven themselves superior parents as a result of their conditioning, their less aggressive natures and their generally better communication skills.
From the time they are little girls, females learn about nurturing. First with dolls and later perhaps with younger brothers and sisters, girls are given the role of carer. Girls see their mothers in the same roles and so it is natural that they identify this as a female activity. Boys, in contrast, learn competitive roles far removed from what it means to nurture. While boys may dream of adventures, girls' conditioning means they tend to see the future in terms of raising families.
Girls also appear to be less aggressive than boys. In adulthood, it is men, not women, who prove to be the aggressors in crime and in war. Obviously, in raising children, a more patient, gentle manner is preferable to a more aggressive one. Although there certainly exist gentle men and aggressive women, by and large, females are less likely to resort to violence in attempting to solve problems.
Finally, women tend to be better communicators than men. This is shown is intelligence tests, where females, on average, do better in verbal communication than males. Of course, communication is of utmost importance in rearing children, as children tend to learn from and adopt the communication styles of their parents.
Thus, while it is all very well to suggest a greater role for men in raising children, let us not forget that women are generally better suited to the parenting role.