TASK 2

SAMPLES
 DISCUSS BOTH VIEW
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.
Some would argue that all students in universities have to study the
subject they like, while others think that they have to only study
something useful for their future, for example, those related to science
and technology sectors. Although learning about the latter subjects is
crucial to secure a good job and salary, I believe that enrollment in
whatever subject they favor leads to students being successful in their
fields.
Studying science and technology during third-level education makes
students able to easily find a job that pays high wages. That is to say,
working in the majority of modern workplaces requires up-to-date
technological information aiming to improve the quality of work and to
compete with others, and, in turn, those employees will earn good
remuneration. For instance, many IT graduates from the University of
Toronto were able to have high positions and good wages in many
renowned business companies. However, I think that the passion for what
students study is more important than how much their earnings are in the
future.
It is very important for university students to study the subjects they
like because this is the reason behind a successful career. That is because
the love for this particular subject allows them to go beyond their limits,
be creative, and be eager to improve, and, thus, they might be promoted.
For instance, many well-known musicians decided to study music
because they were passionate about it and this positive spirit helps them
climb their professional ladder. Therefore, I support this school of
thought because studying a favorite subject is more important.
To conclude, despite the fact that a course in science and technology
can provide postgraduates with a good future career and enough income,
in my view, studying whatever they prefer is better because this leads to
success in their field.
Some people think that it is better to educate boys and girls in
separate schools. Others, however, believe that boys and girls benefit
more from attending mixed schools. Discuss both these views and
give your own opinion.
A number of people argue that it is better for boys and girls to get an
education from different schools, while others believe that it is more
beneficial for children if they attend combined schools. Although
studying in separate schools will help boys and girls to focus more on
their studies, I believe learning from co-educational institutions will help
them to become more social in society.
On the one hand, when boys and girls attend separate schools, they
will spend more time focusing on their studies. This is because there will
not be any opposite gender to be attracted to and to get involved in any
affairs. The schooling hours will be fully utilised to learn something
rather than being diverted from studies and spending time with the ones
they might have affair with in the school. For example, in Nepal, students
from St. Mary’s Girls School showed a better academic performance than
the girls who completed their school years from a co-educational
institution. However, I believe that children attending mixed school will
learn to be more social in the future.
On the other hand, co-education is more beneficial for children
because they will learn some social skills during their school years. This
is to say that children of both genders will be allowed to have combined
studies and will learn how to deal politely with a person of the opposite
sex, an important skill which is highly accepted by society. For example,
boys who finished their studies at co-educational schools showed more
courtesy towards ladies by offering some help when required. For this
reason, it is better for children to attend mixed schools as it helps them to
learn essential social skills.
In conclusion, although educating children in separate schools will
help them to focus on their studies, I believe that co-education is much
better for girls and boys as they will learn essential social skills in school.
 Some people think that the teenage years are the happiest time of
most people’s lives. Others think that adult life brings more
happiness, in spite of greater responsibility. Discuss both views and
give your own opinion.
It is argued that adolescence years are the happiest years in one’s life,
while others believe that adulthood is the most joyful phase to live
despite having bigger responsibilities. This essay believes that, although
adolescents are free of responsibilities, adults enjoy their life more
because they are free to make their own choices.
On the one hand, adolescents are thought to live the happiest moments
of their life because they are not asked to be responsible. Basically, a
teenager lives with his parents, who not only provide him shelter, food,
and education, but also, in some cases, would try to meet his fantasies.
For instance, in my country, teenagers make a great example of spoiled
people who spend their money carelessly and always ask for more,
though they do not seem to be happy.However, I believe that not being
obliged to worry about any responsibility is not what happiness is all
about, and consequently adolescents do not live their happiest days.
On the other hand, others see that adulthood is a happier phase
because adults are free to make the choices that fit their aspirations.
Having the freedom of choice will eventually be followed by
achievements and a sense of self-accomplishment, which is a primary
source of joy. For example, many adults in my country are happy because
of the choice of career or commitment they took on their own, and they
see themselves happier than when they were teenagers. Therefore, I
believe adulthood is the most enjoyable time because one can not be
happy if they have to follow others’ plans even it comes with no
responsibilities.
In conclusion, despite having no responsibilities on their shoulders,
adolescents do not live the happiest moments of their life. This essay
believes that it is adulthood which is the most enjoyable in light of the
fact that adults are free to make their own choices.
 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.
 PROBLEMS - CAUSES - SOLUTIONS
In some countries, younger people are neglecting their right to
vote. What problems does this cause and what are some of the
possible solutions?
It is argued that in certain nations youth are not using their right to
vote. This would hinder the political change, and it would also result in
policies made that are not beneficial for these young people. The most
viable solutions would be to create awareness among the younger
generation and promote them to participate in politics.
Not participating in elections would mean that it would be difficult to
change the government which is necessary for some countries across the
globe. This is because, in any functional democracy, the only way to
change the ruling party is by casting votes in the electoral process.
Furthermore, if young individuals forge their right to vote, it would result
in policies made that do not benefit them. As a result, they would feel that
the state is not addressing their concerns and end up leaving the country.
For instance, every year thousands of young adults from developing
countries immigrate to Europe and North America because they are
unhappy with their government’s performance.
One way to tackle these issues is to inform these people about the
power of vote. Campaigns should be held in universities, and colleges to
educate youth about their political rights. Another solution is to promote
these young people to come into politics. Doing this it would ensure their
representation and their voices being heard. For example, Nelson
Mandela was a young political activist who successfully fought against
racism and became the first black President of South Africa.
In conclusion, neglecting to vote by the young generation would delay
the necessary government change, and laws made that are not in their
favor. However, encouraging youth participation in politics and
awareness campaigns can be possible solutions to tackle these problems.

In some countries, even though the rates of serious crimes are

decreasing, people feel less safe than ever before. What do you think
are the causes of this problem and what measures could be taken to
solve it?
In some nations, despite declining rates of dangerous crimes, people
tend to feel less secure compared to the past. The most obvious causes are
previously committed crimes and detailed description of such scenes on
news can make people feel less safe, and the most viable solutions are
more safety measures in place and detailed description of any serious
crimes should be banned on news channels.
Sometimes, previously committed crimes can make people feel less
protected. This is because they still have memories of horrible crimes in
their minds and make them feel frightened. As a result, they find it
difficult to trust anyone and feel less secure in strengers’ presence. In
addition, watching detailed descriptions of any dangerous crimes on
television can have a destructive effect on people’s mental health. In
other words, a negative visualization of such crimes can result in crime
happening in people’s heads and making them feel less safe. For
example, 1 in every 30 adults in the UK feel frightened after watching
detailed news of serious crimes on television, and not wanting to go out.
A possible solution to this issue is to put more safety measures in
place in order for people to feel safe. This gives them a sense of security
and a way to seek help if in any danger. Another possible solution is a
ban on a detailed description of any serious crimes on television. This
will help people keep away from a negative visualisation and their
damaging effects on their mental health to make them feel unsafe. For
example, recently in India a show called ‘crime patrol’ was prohibited on
news channels because it had a negative psychological impact on people
after watching it.
In conclusion, previously committed crimes and detailed news on any
serious crimes can lead to people feeling less safe. However, this can
simply be prevented by putting extra safety measures in place and
compelling news channels to stop showing comprehensive details of
dangerous crimes.
In many professional sports, there is an increase in the number of
athletes using banned substances to improve their performance.
What are the causes of the phenomenon and what are some of the
possible solutions?
In many professional sports, it is becoming commonplace for athletes
to abuse prohibited substances to boost their overall performance. This
essay will discuss how stiff competition and lax testing systems are the
main cause of this problem, and the most suitable solutions are imposing
heavier punishments on violators and revamping testing facilities.
The main cause of this problem is the fierce competition that exists in
any sports. In other words, most many professional athletes feel that they
have to take substances like steroids to give themselves an advantage
over other strong opponents. Another reason is the lack of strictness in
testing procedures. Many athletes who take advantage of banned
substances can still get off scot-free due to the holes in testing systems.
For example, a high-profile mix martial artist named Jon John who is
notorious for using PED described how easy it was to get away with
cheating in an interview in 2015.
A viable solution is to heavily punish lawbreakers. If sports clubs and
establishments raise the fine for using banned substances, many athletes
will think twice before making attempt to cheat. Another the way to deal
with this issue is to upgrade testing amenities. This will eradicate any
holes existing in the system and ensure that the test result is highly
accurate. For instance, after the UFC had made major investments to
provide their staff with the latest testing equipment, many fighters in their
organization got caught.
 In conclusion, strong competition and ineffective testing systems are
the main cause of this problem, and the most suitable solutions are
enforcing harsher punishments on violators and reforming testing
facilities.

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.

AGREE OR DISAGREE? EXTENT?

Details of politicians’ private lives should not be published in
newspapers. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is thought that the information regarding politicians’ personal lives
should not be shared in print media. This essay strongly agrees with this
suggestion because publishing these details could be harmful to their
families, and obtaining this type of information might require breaking
the law.
First and foremost, what makes that the details related to private
aspects of politicians’ lives should not be shared in newspapers is that it
could be harmful not only to these individuals but also to their families.
This is because revealing some details from their personal lives could
expose them to unwanted comments or allegations, which might lead to a
great deal of distress. In Poland, for instance, in 2015, the vice-prime
minister committed suicide due to not handling the pressure caused by
the paparazzi invading his and his family’s private life.
Furthermore, obtaining this type of information, in most cases, means
breaking the law. This is because the right to privacy is one of the most
fundamental policies in society, and anyone who wants to access the lives
of politicians must obtain their consent. However, not only are paparazzi
hired to invade properties belonging to politicians to take photos without
their permission, but also politicians’ colleagues and relatives are bribed
to share confidential facts from their lives. For instance, an accident in
which Princess Diana was killed was partly caused by the paparazzi who
followed her car, trying to take photos of her and her boyfriend against
their will.
In conclusion, I strongly support the suggestion that politicians’ lives
should not be subject to the interest of newspapers because revealing
personal facts from politicians lives could destroy their family life and
the process of obtaining these details often required wrongdoing.

Some say that music, art and drama are as important as other
school subjects, especially at the primary level. Do you agree or
disagree?

Some people believe that arts-related subjects are as important as other

school subjects, especially for primary school children. I totally agree
with this statement because this can help children to discover their talents
from an early age and can increase their confidence.
One of the reasons I agree that creative subjects have the same
importance as other school courses in primary school is that it allows
students to find out their potential talents early on. That is to say, school-
age is the most convenient time for students to learn more about their
interests by trying different activities as they are young enough to pursue
their hobbies. They will probably not have any other chance later in their
lives to discover that because they will be busy with difficult exams when
they get older. For example, most famous singers were discovered by
their music teachers at school from a young age, and they claimed that
they could not be that successful if their teachers did not find out their
talents when they were young.
Moreover, music, art and drama subjects help students to boost their
confidence. That is because creative lessons teach students how to
perform in front of lots of people and give them a chance to socialise with
other students. As a result, students can realise their real potential and act
more confidently. For instance, many psychologists suggest to students
who are struggling with social anxiety to take drama lessons as it helps to
enhance confidence.
In conclusion, this essay completely agrees that music, art and drama
have the same value as other subjects in primary school because it allows
children to discover their hidden talents early on and increases their self-
confidence.

Most high-level positions in companies are filled by men even

though the workforce in many developed countries is more than 50
per cent female. Companies should be required to allocate a certain
percentage of these positions to women. To what extent do you agree?
Although women account for more than 50 per cent of the workforce
in developed nations, a number of managerial positions are still occupied
by men. Some believe that a certain proportion of these vacancies should
be allocated to females. This essay, however, strongly disagrees with this
statement because this can discourage qualified men to work hard, and
such a policy can encourage organisations to find some wrong ways to
outsmart the system.
Reserving a certain proportion of high-level positions for women
because of their gender may prevent educated males from making a
contribution to the progress of a company. This is because any employee
naturally wants to have equal opportunities for promotion irrespective of
gender. If males at workplace are deprived of it, they are not motivated to
work hard. For example, psychologists claim that the motivation and hard
work of subordinates directly hinge on the promotional system of a
company.
Furthermore, imposing a quota will make companies seek for some
illegal ways to outwit this regulation since the priority of most companies
is to reward employees with high-level positions according to their
knowledge and experience, not their genders. Hence, if any law
contradicts the policy of a company based on gender, the owners of that
company are more likely to make modifications to outsmart the system,
which benefits neither of them. For example, not to compulsively hire
female employees to the top management of a company, owners can
change the tittle of a position to just to fill a vacancy.
In conclusion, I strongly disagree with the idea of allocation of certain
high-level posts to females because of their gender since this can
discourage qualified males to work hard and make companies find
alternative ways to outwit the law.
Some people say that music is a good way of bringing people of
different cultures and ages together. To what extent do you agree or
disagree with this opinion?
It is often said that music has the power to unite and connect people,
regardless of their cultural backgrounds or ages. I completely agree with
this view, and will give my reasons below.
Music can certainly reach across cultural and national boundaries and
bring people together. Perhaps the best example of this would be the Live
Aid concerts that took place back in the 1980s, and which were broadcast
to a global audience. Two live events were held simultaneously in the UK
and the US, and the objective was to raise funds for famine relief in
Ethiopia. The concerts were a huge success, both in terms of the number
of people around the world who watched them and their impact on
international public awareness of the famine. They demonstrated, I
believe, that music truly is the planet’s global language.
Just as it transcends cultures, music also has the ability to connect
people from different generations. Regardless of age, we can all enjoy a
memorable melody, a strong rhythm or a beautiful singing voice, and the
best songs seem to have the same magical effect on all of us. This would
explain why televised music competitions, such as ‘The X Factor’ or
‘The Voice’, are such popular prime-time shows. These programmes
attract incredibly broad audiences because singing and popular songs
appeal to children, parents and grandparents alike. I would argue that no
other form of entertainment can bring families together in this way.
 In conclusion, I believe that music is unique in its capacity to create
shared experiences between people, irrespective of culture and age.

OUTWEIGHING
In some countries, it is becoming increasingly common for
people to follow a vegetarian diet. Do the advantages of this outweigh
the disadvantages?
In a number of countries, following a vegetarian diet has become very
popular. Although being a vegetarian can limit the options when eating, I
believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages because it allows the
body to work properly.
For vegetarian people it is difficult to find varied options to eat. Since
the majority of the worldwide population have a diet that includes animal
products, these type of food is the one that is normally available at food
businesses. Therefore, people with a vegetarian diet have to choose
between a limited number of plates or products when buying food or
eating out. For example, in many popular restaurants in Colombia, the
menu has only a short vegetarian section which includes only two or
three plates that are completely vegetarian. However, I believe that those
options that are offered are healthier than plates that are sold in large
quantities.
Following a vegetarian diet allows the body to work better. This is
because science has shown that when our human system digests animal
products, such as meat, it has to work harder to process the food that it is
not designed to receive. Thus, people that have a diet based on plants and
seeds are more prone to have a healthier life because they allow their
bodies to focus their energy in its normal processes. For instance, people
who become vegetarian are less prone to get sick because their immune
system has all the energy focused on fighting bacteria and not causing
chronic inflammation because of the food. That is why I consider that
following a vegetarian diet can have more benefits in the long term.
In conclusion, although vegetarian people have fewer options when
buying products without animal ingredients, it is my belief that following
a vegetarian diet has a positive impact in the body functions.

Many people are now opting to provide technology companies

with their personal data in exchange for access to software. Do the
advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?
These days many individuals are choosing to give tech companies
their personal information to gain access to software. Although using this
software makes people’s life easier, I believe that the benefits do not
outweigh the drawbacks because companies are able to constantly
influence consumers’ choices.
The main advantage of sharing your private data with tech companies
is that the software they provide you makes your life simpler. This is
because this software offers users personalized help in their daily matters
so that they can avoid wasting time and energy doing things that they can
easily do with the aid of technology. For example, Google Drive offers
you a free cloud-based storage where all your documents and pictures are
automatically saved and you can access them from any device at any
time, without worrying about saving them on a pen drive that you might
lose. However, I believe that this argument is weaker because people
should prioritize their privacy.
One of the disadvantages is that once they have access to your data,
tech corporations can use them to control your choices at all times. This
is to say that tech companies harvest the data you agreed to share with
them, and through an in-depth analysis performed by artificial
intelligence and through complex algorithms, they create profiles based
on your interests, likes and dislikes. These profiles are then sold to third-
party companies for advertising purposes. For example, Google records
all your google searches and all the videos you watch on YouTube and
then decides what type of advertisement you would be more susceptible
to. This targeted marketing has proven extremely successful. I believe
this argument is stronger because people are deceived from these
companies to generate revenues.
In conclusion, although providing confidential information to tech
firms in order to use software simplifies your life, I believe that being
continuously influenced in your decisions is a major drawback. For these
reasons, I think that the negatives far outweigh the positives.
Some people regard video games as harmless fun, or even as a
useful educational tool. Others, however, believe that videos 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 usersǯ
motor skills 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
atschool, 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.