You are on page 1of 7

In most countries, multinational companies and their products are becoming more

and more important. This trend is seriously damaging our quality of life.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Globalization is nowadays a necessary tendency in most countries in the world. As a


result, we cannot neglect the importance of multinational companies and their products.
However, some people think that it may seriously damage our quality of life. As far as I
am concerned, these multinational products and companies, which bring about
remarkable benefits, are good for each nation.

In the first place, some people think that when a country globalizes, multinational
companies will invade the local market with their goods and force local companies with
fewer resources to go out of business. It is only true to some extent. In fact, the
intergration of multinational companies to a nation will create a common playground for
local ones and even themselves, where the competition is fair. Whatever kind of that
company, it will try hard to express itself to other friends, creating its own brandname
and getting a fixed position on the market.

Besides, the appearance of multinational goods will diverse markets. Choices for
consumers will increase as a result. In other words, people have chance to select whether
domestic or overseas products they like, instead of choosing the identical ones in the past.
Therefore, consumers are the ones who benefit most.

Another plus is that these companies will create job opportunites for people when they
decide to enter a country’s market. It is especially true when we are living in a competive
and rapidly changing world, where unemployment is a controversial issue among general
public.

All things considered, I hold the view that the appearance of multinational companies and
their products makes our lives better and also improve the standard of living.

Governments make rules to protect people from danger, for example by making
people wear seat belts in cars or not allowing smoking in public buildings. However,
many people believe there are too many rules nowadays.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The development of the society may cause the danger and risk for people. As a result,
many rules are set up by governments to protect people from these things. However,
some people think too many rules nowadays can restrict their activities. As far as I am
concerned, it is reasonable that these rules are necessary for us and they should be
maintained.

In the first place, some people who support the ideas about making fewer rules think
these rules will affect or restrict their freedom to do what they want. It is understandable,
imagine you were a heavy smoker but you were not allowed to smoke, of course you

1
would feel uncomfortable, a little oppressive or sometimes hot-tempered with people
surrounding. However, I myself think that unscientific and bad habit like this is costly for
everyone because the public health service has to pay for the treatment of diseases like
lung cancer caused by smoking, or even the injuries resulting from road accidents that are
due to unawareness of people about refusing to wear seat belts in cars. Therefore, making
rules seems to be a wiser choice.

Another plus is some people for this idea assert that instead of making more rules and
regulations, government should inform people about danger of the risk or bad bahaviour:
smoking, riding a bicycle without a helmet, namely. This solution sound like interesting
and effective, but I am afraid it only works in the world where people have high attitude
and awareness about risks to them. Unfortunately, in the modern society nowadays, many
people do not pay attention to these warnings. For that matter, passing laws is a more
effective way to protect them.

All things considered, I hold the view that making rules is necessary and compulsory for
people. It is my strong belief that what governments do is to ensure a better and safer life
for all the people.

According to a recent study, the more time people use the Internet, the less time
they spend with real human beings. Should we worry about the effect this is having
on social interaction or should we see the Internet as a way of opening up new
communication possibilities worldwide?
What are your views?

It is not deniable that the Internet is a relatively new invention. Some people think that
this modern device restrict the time we communicate with real human beings. However,
as far as I am concerned, instead of discouraging people from social interaction, the
Internet is a useful tool which open new communication possibilities worldwide.

In the first place, the Internet makes our communication easier. For example, if you want
to talk with a friend or relative who is thousands of miles far from you, will you go by
train or plane for a long distance to meet him/her? Unfortunately, the answer is often “
impossible”. With the Internet, we can contact with people around the world by only
turning on your computer and connecting them via e-mail, phones from PC to PC or PC
to mobiles, etc, which is very convenient. Therefore, obstacles like distance or climate
will be overcome.

Besides, the Internet opens up opportunities for us to make friends. By joining a chat
room, you can make conversations with people from different countries you’ve never met
before and can make friends with the ones you like. By saying this, I mean the Internet is
like a hi-tech device that connects people and make them closer.

However, the Internet also has some drawbacks. To some extent, it prevents us from
meeting face-to-face. In a modern society like this, people seem busy with their work and

2
too depend on this tool. They don’t want to meet each other because it wastes time.
Sometimes, it is called an unreal world, where you don’t know whether the person you
are talking to is good or bad , whether he tells the truth or tells lies.

All things considered, although there are some disadvantages, I hold the view that the
Internet makes our lives comfortable and become better. It contributes to making
communication easier and more worldwide.

Some people argue that the government should give every unemployed person a
mobile phone and should make sure they have access the Internet.
They believe this is the best way of using public money to reduce the problem of
unemployment.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Unemployment is nowadays an issue which arouses too much controversy among general
public. Some measures have been taken to solve this problem completely. Some people
suggest that governments should provide the unemployed mobile phone and the Internet.
However, as far as I am concerned, it would be a good idea to help the unemployed
access to the Internet but it is unreasonable to offer them a mobile phone.

In the first place, the Internet is a necessary tool for every people , especially when we
are living in a competitive and rapidly changing world. By saying this, I mean most
information about jobs will be updated quickly via this modern device. The unemployed
can easily find out and apply the jobs they want by only a click on the screen, instead of
going to the job agencies, which cost money, time and energy. Another plus is that it
would be unfair that if other people can benefit much from this hi-tech tool while the
unemployed cannot access to it simply because they do not have money. For that matter,
supplying them with the Internet should be highly recommended.

However, offering these unemployed people with mobile phones seems to be


unreasonable. Although it is a modern device and it is very convenient to communicate,
the unemployed use it to contact with many companies and agencies for jobs. Maybe they
cannot afford the sum of money for these necessary contacts, even sometimes it is out of
their control. I’d like to raise the question that: “Will it be economic if unemployed
people have to pay a not-small amount of money for using mobile phones while the
results are not always optimistic?”. Unfortunately, the answer is often “ no”.

In the last analysis, I hold the view that governments should only help them access to the
Internet but subsidize them mobile phones. It is my strong belief that with the efforts of
everyone, the unemployment will be soon solved in a not-too-distant future.

In many countries television shows many foreign-made programmes. The


dominance of imported entertainment is harmful to the cultures of these countries.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

3
Television is nowadays considered an effective way of entertaining for most people.
However, in many countries, foreign-made programmes are imported in order to meet the
entertainment demand of the public. As far as I am concerned, this import is harmless
and does not have any adverse effects on these nations.

In the first place, the amount of money spent for making a program is not cheap at all,
even more expensive than buying a program from abroad. By saying this, I mean to
mention the price. In fact, some local companies cannot afford to make their own, so
importing entertaining programs is their practicable choice.

Another plus is that some local television companies do not make programs simply
because they cannot sell them to other countries, especially in a competitive world like
this. Maybe they cannot find way to produce a high-quality program or maybe they lack
experiences. Therefore, they can learn more from the imported programmes about how to
organize a successful show or even how to attract viewers.

Besides, the appearance of these imported programmes will diverse the markets of
entertainment. Viewers have more choices to select and enjoy the programmes they like.
In addition, it will also create a common playground for all the companies. They will
have to compete with each other to survive. The better quality of a programme is, the
more famous brandname the company will get. And the farest evaluation for programmes
shown is from the viewers.

All things considered, I hold the view that importing foreign-made programmes is good
for both local and overseas companies. It is my strong belief that with the efforts, local
companies can produce hand-made programmes to serve the viewers of this nation in a
not-too-distant future.

It is inevitable that as technology develops so traditional cultures must be lost.


Technology and tradition are incompatible – you cannot have both together.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

It cannot be denied that the development of technology has changed our lives a lot in
recent years. Some people think that it will affect the society in a negative way and may
lead to the disappearance of our traditional cultures. As far as I am concerned, however,
technology is necessary and it can be totally compatible together with tradition.

In the first place, the advances of technology bring about huge benefits without losing
traditional culture. It can be seen easily nowadays, the invention of modern devices has
made contact become easier. For example, you can use e-mails, chat programs or cell
phones to get in touch with each other, which saves time and energy. However, the hand-
writing form is totally not neglected. Imagine you were studying abroad, how would your
parents be happy when they received a letter written by hand from you? Or another
intesting example, if you want to express your feelings or emotion to a person you like,

4
handwriting form will be better and more effective and meaningful than mails written by
machines.

Another plus is that in many cases, a change in technology do not lead to a change in
traditional culture. For example, tractors invented help farmers a lot in ploughing the
fields instead of using aninals like in the past. As a result, their productivity and lifestyle
improved, but the beliefs, customs or even the behaviour of farmers remain unchanged as
time goes by.

All things considered, I hold the view that technology and traditional culture can exist
together and assist each other to develop. It is my strong belief that technology
contributes to building cultures in a good way but not changes it anyway.

Modern lifestyles mean that many parents have little time for their children. Many
children suffer because they do not get as much as attention from their parents as
childlren did in the past.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It cannot be denied that the development of the society has affected greater or less our
lifestyles. Unfortunately, many parents have too little time and pay less attention to their
children than in the past. Therefore, the inevitable result is that their kids will suffer.

In the first place, people living in a modern world seem very busy with their work. They
do not have time to look after their children, so they send children to school, where
teachers are required to take responsibility for bringing up children instead of parents.
Unfortunately, in some families, children only see their parents only in the evening. They
do not have chance to talk or share thoughts and feelings together. According to a recent
survey, a child who receives much attention from parents will perform better at school
than a child who does not. For that matter, caring for children is necessary for their
development.

Besides, there are many other factors making parents concern less about their children.
Indifference from parents can result from realizing that children are very bad-behaved, or
being too disappointed when children get low marks at school. Seriously, in some cases,
they hit children, losing the trust from them. Therefore, children are highly likely to
commit crimes like robbery or be involved in drug trade.

All things considered, I hold the view that children are less looked after by parents than
in the past. It is my strong belief that parents should do something to secure a better life
for their children.

The world is consuming natural resources faster than they can be renewed.
Therefore it is important that products are made to last. Goverments should
discourage people from constantly buying more up to date or fashionable products.
To what extent do you agree with the statement above?

5
There has been much debate among general public on the question of how to spend
natural resources effectively, especially when some sources can not be renewable. Some
people support the idea that people should be discouraged from buying up to date or
fashionable products to protect the sources. However, as far as I am concerned, this
measure is not unreasonable.

In the first place, it would be unfair for consumers when they are not allowed to use up-
to-date products. By saying this, I mean to mention the rights of consumers. In detail,
when a company makes a modern product, its aim is to access consumers, encourage
them to try and get their opinion about this afterwards. It is a good way to improve
products as well as benefit consumers a lot. It is especially true for the items involving
fashion and clothes. Therefore, it stands to reason why forbidding people to use modern
products is only a short-sighted solution.

Besides, there are also other measures that could be taken to make the resources last. For
example, factories should only exploit natural resources like coal, steel or oil at a rational
degree and have to make plans before doing. Another solution is they can use other
materials that can be renewable instead of the resources that do not.

All things considered, I hold the view that it would be irrational to discourage people
from accessing up-to-date and fashionable goods . It is my strong belief that with the
development of technology, we can make all the resources renewable in a not-too-distant
future so that we will not be limited by using them to serve daily demand of human being
and make our lives better.

Parents and teachers make many rules for children to encourage good behaviour
and to protect them from danger. However, children would benefit from fewer rules
and greater freedom.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There has been much debate among general public on the question of whether parents
and teachers should make too much rules for children or not. Some people think it is only
a way to restrict children’s freedom. However, as far as I am concerned, these rules are
necessary to encourage good behaviour as well as protect children from danger.

In the first place, children do not develop thoroughly for both bodies and spirit. They are
easily affected by things surrounding in a both negative and positive way. According a
recent survey, a child who watches too much violient films or play unsuitable games
without control of parents are highly likely imitate what they have seen in the real life,
which may lead to changes in characteristics or behaviour of children. Seriously, in some
cases, too freedom for children can make them think that they have rights to do whatever
they want. They may make friends with bad people or involve in doing the wrong things.
Therefore, it stands to reason why rules are very important to protect them from danger.

6
In addition, making rules is a way to encourage good behaviour. In other words,
children’s behaviour or characteristics are formed when they are small. Parents and
teachers set up rules to teach children what they should do, what should not, how to
evaluate an object or how to stimulate their creativeness,etc. By this way, with good
education and concerning, children will become good citizens when they grow up.

All things considered, I hold the view that it is rational for parents and teachers to make
rules for children. It is my strong belief that with the suitable rules set up, children will
feel comfortable and free.

Too much emphasis is placed on testing these days. The need to prepare for tests
and examination is a restriction on teachers and also exerts unnecessary pressure on
young learners.
How far do you agree or disagree?

There has been much debate among general public on the question of what can be done to
improve the education’s quality. Some people believe that testing is very necessary and
should be focused on. As far as I am concerned, it is unreasonable because these tests
restrict teachers and also exert unnecessary pressure on young learners.

In the first place, it is noticeable that if schools and universities focus on too much testing
to evaluate students, teachers will only try to teach students important parts of lessons
with a view to getting high marks, ignoring other parts. At this point, I would like to raise
the question: “ Can students really get knowledge?”. Unfortunately, the answer is often
“no”. In addition, teachers may feel more or less pressured when responsible for
students’results before schools or universities. Another plus is that when having to
prepare too much tests for students and giving marks, they do not have enough time to
relax as well as upgrade their knowledge. Hence, giving too many tests may have adverse
effects on teachers.

Besides, it may affect students in a negative way. In other words, when too many tests
come to students, some students will study hurriedly and only focus on the lessons they
think they will be tested. As a result, they will not have the full understanding of what
they have been taught. Also, recent surveys shows many cases of students get diseases
involving stress when studying too much, which leads to not-good-studying results.

All things considered, I hold the view that testing is also a way to evaluate
students’progress in studying but too much testing may work adversely. It is my strong
belief that with the effort of everyone, we will soon find the best way to solve this
problem, thus greatly enhancing the quality of education.

You might also like