Kien Tran IELTS MODEL ESSAYS

In conclusion, traveling to remotes natural areas benefits students, scientists and the world at large in a variety of ways.. For example, if these companies take steps to dispose of was

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?

In recent decades, global warming has been receiving a great deal of media attention around the world due to its substantial impacts on human life Although the idea of coexistence between climate change and humans appears reasonable, this cannot be viewed as the ultimate approach for humankind to combat climate change

There are a number of reasons why the coexistence can do more harm than good First, climate change is largely shaped by human-caused geoengineering rather than nature itself For example, in order to produce the energy that drives the world’s economy, most nations rely on carbon-rich fuels like coal, oil and gas, which directly correlates with the intensification of global warming Second, even if citizens agree to keep the environment the way it is, corporations, especially in the manufacturing and mining industries, would not as that would affect their profits Therefore, it can be implied that if corporations were not held accountable for their contribution to global warming as in the case of coexistence, the issue of climate change would inevitably be exacerbated

It is more economically sound to actively prevent climate change than to ignore it In fact, the costs, either financial or non-financial, of dealing with future consequences of climate change can be overwhelming For instance, the increase in intensity and frequency of storms can cause massive destructions and deaths in many coastal areas, which would take decades to recover In addition, rising temperatures have also contributed to the extinction of species worldwide It should be noted that the extinction is irreversible and comes at great cost to the ecosystem and apparently humans living within it

In conclusion, actively combating global warming must be regarded as top priority given the high urgency Governments and corporations worldwide should take steps to ensure that climate change remains at bay

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environment, such as the South Pole Do you agree or disagree with this

development?

In recent decades, there have been a growing trend towards traveling to remote natural areas for a variety of purposes Although this trend might

be of great concern to some environmental activists, scientists and thrill-seekers should still be encouraged to study and explore there

Scientists in different branches need to travel to remote natural environment like South Pole to study and protect it This benefits not only those who do the research themselves but also the society as a whole as there will be solutions to many global problems such as climate change Second, most scientists travel to remote natural areas in efforts to learn how to protect them from other humans In fact, if no pertinent data about the interaction of humans and the environment is collected for research and made known to the public, even innocent people can inadvertently damage the areas

There are also a number of benefits for tourists traveling to isolated natural environment One of those benefits is that natural areas offer one-of-a-kind traveling experience to visitors For example, those who decide

to take a vacation to South Pole will be able to immerse in the wilderness and the atmosphere that are entirely different from the world they know

In addition, by staying inside a natural environment, tourists will be able

to develop a higher appreciation for nature In fact, a large number of tourists and students have chosen to become environmental advocates

or even activists after a trip to the wilderness, which helps raise the public awareness on the issue

In conclusion, traveling to remotes natural areas benefits students, scientists and the world at large in a variety of ways As long as there is

no disruption to the original state of nature, everyone should be welcomed.

295 words

Are famous people treated unfairly by the media? Should they be given

life?

It is evident the nature of media has rapidly evolved over the past few years, reshaping the way media companies do business However, the fact that celebrities’ privacy is at stake is just one of many inevitable products of fame that have been long acknowledged

First, unlike one single media channel, the pool of media should be considered reasonably fair as many channels are simultaneously participating to offer varying or even contradicting opinions In fact, the increased availability of media channels has reached the point where information efficiency is achieved The implication of this is that famous people should be expecting even more fairness treatment now and down the road Also of importance is the fact that any libel or slander against famous people are done by the media can be easily brought to trial, resulting in significant liabilities for the media This, thereby, acts as a disincentive for media corporations from failing to meet the industry standards on privacy issue, especially when it involves celebrities

It should be acknowledged that fame and media attention are tied to one another Celebrities should expect a reasonable level of intrusion upon seclusion and biases from the media since those are recognized products of fame This suggests that the media and celebrities share the responsibility on privacy issue rather than attributing all the blames to the media In fact, with an increase in public exposure, the responsibility held

by public figures should be set even higher than otherwise Thus, famous ones should not be infuriated simply because the media is doing its regular job

In conclusion, famous people are treated fairly by the press since it is getting increasingly harder for the media to cross the line nowadays It is safe to say acknowledging the celebrities’ higher privacy responsibility associated with fame is key to finding the common ground between the media and celebrities on this subject matter

Nowadays, most large companies operate multinationally To what

communities in which they operate?

In recent decades, there has been growing trend of offshore expansion

by large companies, thanks to globalization Although multinational corporations create jobs for local people, their responsibility towards local communities should be at the highest level

It is true that responsible corporate behavior contributes to broad-based benefits for the countries in which the companies are active First, foreign companies should be responsible towards the environment of the region For example, if these companies take steps to dispose of waste properly, local people can enjoy new products without any concern for the environment Second, multinational companies should be more active in charitable activities because that would give them an opportunity to save more lives overseas In fact, many regions in which these companies operate do not have access to resources to deal with problems like hunger and poverty

Another compelling reason is that foreign companies can substantially benefit from being socially responsible Companies, especially in the manufacturing and mining industries, actively protecting the environment, can ensure their sustainable long-term growth In fact, the media has revealed many instances of companies being taken away social license due to the imprudence towards the environment In addition, multinational corporations should be very conscious of their track records when it comes to local responsibility as these are directly tied to brand names If brand names are properly maintained and enhanced, sales and profits will be poised to increase as companies will

be receiving more support from both local customers and government

In conclusion, the bar for corporate responsibilities towards local communities should always be high This benefits not only the countries

in which companies operate but the companies themselves

274 words

The use of mobile phone is as antisocial as smoking Smoking is banned

in certain places so mobile phone should be banned like smoking To what extend do you agree or disagree?

It is true the use of cell phones has gained in popularity over the past few decades, making a paradigm shift in the lifestyle of every human on Earth Although some might suggest banning mobile phones like cigarettes due

to their presumably antisocial effects, the suggestion is groundless and should not be implemented

There are a number of reasons why mobile phones are not as antisocial

as smoking First, people, rather than mobile phones, are the factor that ultimately decide whether or not to engage in antisocial behaviors In fact, there are plenty of mobile phone users who are even more prosocial than non-users, suggesting an insignificant causal relationship between mobile phones and antisocial behaviors Second, mobile phones should not be compared to smoking as they are two distinct products While cigarettes use chemical compounds to directly influence smokers’ brain, mobile phones have nothing to do with these chemicals

Another compelling reason to not ban mobile phones is that they are necessary to daily life First, using mobile phones is one of the most efficient and inexpensive ways to communicate with others Before the appearance of mobile phones, delivering a message from one location to another would require physical travels, costing unnecessary time, effort and money In addition, mobile phones have functions that enable users

to keep contacts, thereby promoting social behaviors and strengthening social connections For example, people are more likely to lose important contacts and might even forget one another if they do not use mobile phones

In conclusion, since mobile phones have nothing to do with antisocial effects and smoking, they should not be banned If any, the net advantage of using mobile phones is still too high to consider banning

284 words

Nowadays, more and more people decide to have children later in their life What are the the reasons? Do advantages of this outweigh

disadvantages?

In recent decades, having children later in life has become a growing trend for many reasons Although the trend is not without disadvantages, the upsides can justify these

There are a number of reasons leading to that trend First, in order to compete in the job market, many couples choose to focus time, effort and money on their careers It is clear that delaying parenthood enables couples to work longer hours and with higher commitment, which results

in better salary and wages Second, many young people nowadays understand the magnitude of child rearing responsibility For example, feeding babies and teaching them require a great deal of patience and hard work, which discourages many would-be parents

There are also advantages and disadvantages of that trend As for the upside, those who delay starting a family can have time to get more done, either at work or in life, making them happier overall In fact, studies have shown that people who have the time to do and travel more when they are young have a higher level of happiness than those who do not Nevertheless, giving birth later in life does pose certain risks that might affect a woman’s health as well as her baby’s health That said, although older women have an increased risk of having a child with birth defect, the probability is still slim

In conclusion, the sacrifices of starting a family at young age are too overwhelming compared to they are otherwise Young couples should also consider their own situation to make the best decision

(257 words)

In many countries, people now wear Western clothes (suits, jeans) rather

development?

In recent decades, Western clothes have gained in popularity in many countries, especially developing ones Although the trend appears to challenge the preservation of traditional fashion of those countries, it brings more positive changes overall

There are a number of reasons leading to that trend First, thanks to globalization, citizens of faraway countries are now able to purchase Western clothes without leaving the country In fact, they can even get better deals purchasing those imported clothes because of increased competition in the apparel industry Second, the increase in freedom of choice in less-developed countries over time has allowed citizens to choose what to wear based more on personal preferences For example,

a citizen nowadays can wear what he or she wants without having to take into account social approval on clothing, thereby increasing the demand for Western apparels

Even though the trend has received some criticisms over the years, it has positively affected those countries at the other end First, Western clothing brings more variety to the existing market, giving customers more options to weigh their decisions It is clear that not all people wish

to limit themselves to traditional costumes on all occasions In addition,

by injecting Western fashion into the market, traditional clothing can, in fact, stand out on special occasions such as New Year or Independent Day If traditional clothes were worn on a daily basis, their value will be diluted, making Western fashion appear more special in the eyes of not only the citizens but also tourists

In conclusion, the development should be embraced because of its overwhelming advantages It not only benefits the citizens in different ways but helps preserve the traditional fashion as well.

(280 words)

Some people think that it is good for a country’s culture to broadcast foreign films and TV shows Others, however, think it is best to produce local films and shows Discuss both views and give your own opinion

In recent decades, movies and TV series have been imported at an increasing rate, causing some public controversy Although, some traditionalists believe that this development comes at the expense of a country’s culture, plenty of evidence suggests that the opposite is true

There are a number of reasons why local films and shows benefit a culture First, motion pictures are an effective way to crystallize and project the intangible element of a culture Therefore, if local films and shows are the primary focus, viewers would find it easier to assimilate the beliefs, values and assumptions of a culture, which can be difficult to achieve by using written form Second, producing more local films will enrich the cultural library For example, since local programs are abundant in India, the Indian culture appears more vivid and unique than other cultures with fewer local films produced

On the other hand, imported movies and TV series bring a lot of advantages to a local culture First, thanks to foreign programs, local ones become more distinguishable and thus appreciable, especially in the eyes of local residents In fact, if one never watched other countries’ programs, he or she would be susceptible to taking his or her culture for granted Second, by getting new ideas from overseas, a local culture will obtain the opportunity to fix its existing flaws and therefore get perfected For intance, the South Korean culture has fewer flaws than North Korean one because it is more open to new ideas in the form of foreign films

In conclusion, only focusing on producing local films and shows will do more harm than good Local officials should also recognize the benefits

of purchasing foreign movies on preserving their culture.

285 words

It is impossible to help all people in the world, so governments should

agree or disagree?

It is true that some governments of developed nations choose to engage

in foreign affairs in different areas Although some believe that people inside the country are the ones who need the most help from the governments, governments still cannot ignore people from the rest of the world

It is clear that many countries in the world still have not recognized fundamental human rights First, citizens of those countries are deprived of their freedom and are oppressed in many inhumane ways Many Vietnamese dissidents, for example, were sentenced to death by the Vietnamese authority, which could have been saved if the US government had tried to prevent that from happening Second, since citizens of those countries are not armed and lack of negotiating power, they are unable to claim their democracy back By using diplomatic pressure to negotiate the terms, the governments from developed nations allows citizens from overseas to influence their own governments in the policy-making process

It has been true in many cases that prolonged poverty cannot be solved without the assistance from foreign governments One product of poverty is hunger, causing millions of deaths every year all around the world If outside governments had stepped in and provided financial assistance, those lives would have been saved In addition to financial support, governmental organizations can help provide the education and skills for those citizens Plenty of evidence have suggested that the most effective way to overcome poverty is education

In conclusion, governments cannot ignore people living in distress from the rest of the world By providing education and financial support, citizens around the world would be able to live a better life

274 words

Many people say the gap between rich and poor people is wider, as

those problem?

Wealth inequality has been receiving endless public attention and criticisms from academia, in both developed and developing nations Although problems associated with this situation can be pronounced, they are not without solutions

There are a number of problems caused by wealth inequality First, wealth inequality widens the gaps among different social classes, meaning different treatments for different social classes will likely ensue For example, youthful upper-class members can attend prominent preparatory schools, which open doors not only to such elite universities but also to the universities’ highly exclusive clubs whereas lower-class ones do not possess the same opportunities Second, since the rich possess most of the wealth, they have the power to manipulate politicians to enact policies in favor of them at the expense of other social classes For instance, recent evidence suggests that Wall Street banks have gotten even richer with policies made by the US government

Nevertheless, there have been many good solutions for wealth inequality First, since the rich cannot spend all their money, imposing higher taxes

on the rich would not disrupt their lifestyles much and still substantially increase the tax revenue to assist the less fortunate The revenue collected can be spent to build and improve educational institutions and grant scholarships or bursaries to poorer students, giving them equal opportunities to succeed Second, wealth inequality can be caused by tax loopholes that the rich are taking advantage of Therefore, the key to solving this issue is to close as many loopholes as possible so that it is more fair for the poor and middle class

In conclusion, although wealth inequality can cause a whole host of social issues, there are still many practical solutions By adjusting tax policies alone, governments can be a decent contributor to a fairer society

293 words