IELTS Writing Task 2 – Topic: DISCUSS BOTH VIEWS
|
1. In many countries, a small number of people earn extremely
high salaries. |
Answer
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.
(274 words, band 9)
|
2. 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. |
Answer
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.
(262 words, band 9)
|
3. 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 |
Answer
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.
(297 words, band 9)
|
4. Some people think that a sense of competition in children
should be encouraged. Others believe that children who are taught to
co-operate rather than compete become more useful adults. Discuss both these
views and give your own opinion. |
Answer
People have different views about
whether children should be taught to be competitive or co-operative. While a
spirit of competition can sometimes be useful in life, I believe that the
ability to co-operate is more important.
On the one hand, competition can
be a great source of motivation for children. When teachers use games or prizes
to introduce an element of competitiveness into lessons, it can encourage
children to work harder to outdo the other pupils in the class. This kind of
healthy rivalry may help to build children’s self confidence, while pushing
them to work independently and progress more quickly. When these children leave
school, their confidence and determination will help them in competitive
situations such as job interviews. It can therefore be argued that competition
should be encouraged in order to prepare children for adult life.
On the other hand, it is perhaps
even more important to prepare children for the many aspects of adult life that
require co-operation. In the workplace, adults are expected to work in teams,
follow instructions given by their superiors, or supervise and support the more
junior members of staff. Team collaboration skills are much more useful than a
competitive determination to win. This is the attitude that I believe schools
should foster in young people. Instead of promoting the idea that people are
either winners or losers, teachers could show children that they gain more from
working together.
In conclusion, I can understand
why people might want to encourage competitiveness in children, but it seems to
me that a co-operative attitude is much more desirable in adult life.
(270 words, band 9)
|
5. Some people think that museums should be enjoyable places
to entertain people, while others believe that the purpose of museums is to
educate. |
Answer
People have different views about
the role and function of museums. In my opinion, museums can and should be both
entertaining and educational.
On the one hand, it can be argued
that the main role of a museum is to entertain. Museums are tourist
attractions, and their aim is to exhibit a collection of interesting objects
that many people will want to see. The average visitor may become bored if he or
she has to read or listen to too much educational content, so museums often put
more of an emphasis on enjoyment rather than learning. This type of museum is
designed to be visually spectacular, and may have interactive activities or
even games as part of its exhibitions.
On the other hand, some people
argue that museums should focus on education. The aim of any exhibition should
be to teach visitors something that they did not previously know. Usually this
means that the history behind the museum’s exhibits needs to be explained, and
this can be done in various ways. Some museums employ professional guides to
talk to their visitors, while other museums offer headsets so that visitors can
listen to detailed commentary about the exhibition. In this way, museums can
play an important role in teaching people about history, culture, science and
many other aspects of life.
In conclusion, it seems to me
that a good museum should be able to offer an interesting, enjoyable and
educational experience so that people can have fun and learn something at the
same time.
(253 words, band 9)
|
6. 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. |
Answer
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.
(271 words, band 9)
|
7. 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. |
Answer
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.
(258 words, band 9)
|
8. 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. |
Answer
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.
(262 words, band 9)
|
9. 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. |
Answer
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.
(270 words, band 9)
Contact #
0334-8073431
Blc.sambrial@gmail.com
Comments
Post a Comment