IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answers: Agree/ Disagree (Phần 4)
IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answers: Agree/ Disagree (Phần 4)
Chào các bạn, dưới đây là tổng hợp các bài mẫu IELTS Writing Task 2 do VnDoc.com sưu tầm và đăng tải. Đây đều là các bài viết theo phong cách đơn giản, không dùng từ vựng và ngữ pháp quá khó, tập trung vào việc diễn đạt và khai triển ý mạch lạc, dễ hiểu. Các bài viết này đều đạt band điểm khoảng 8.
Tổng hợp câu hỏi và bài mẫu IELTS Writing Task 2 chủ đề Giáo Dục
IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer: Agree/ Disagree (Phần 1)
IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answers: Agree/ Disagree (Phần 2)
IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answers: Agree/ Disagree (Phần 3)
16. Some people think the government should pay for health care and education, but other people claim that it is the individual's responsibility. Do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, health care and education have become the focus of the people's concern. It is a highly debated issue as to who should pay for these services. There are those who argue that the government should pay for them while others think the costs should be shouldered by individuals. Personally, I think that basic health care and primary education should be on the government but advanced health care and higher education should be borne by the individual.
It is irrefutable that it is the government's responsibility to make basic health care and primary education accessible to everyone. The reason is that a nation's prosperity very much depends on the contribution made by its well-educated citizens who are in good health. After all we all pay taxes and so we are entitled to get something back in return. Private schools and private hospitals can be available for those who want and can afford it but the free schools and free government hospitals should always be there.
On the other hand, individuals should be responsible for their advanced health care. Actually, the advanced medical and surgical treatments are very expensive. So, instead of depending on government we should take some health insurance or save in any other way with the tomorrow in mind. Higher education, too benefits the individual more than the nation. So it is quite reasonable to pay for it from one's pocket.
There are, of course, some sections of society who cannot afford their own healthcare. The government should have some system of knowing their financial status and provide free healthcare so that nobody dies for want of treatment. As far as higher education is concerned, the government can have some system of interest free loans for the needy and meritorious students.
To sum up, basic education and primary education should be borne by the government but advanced health care and education should be paid by the individual from his pocket.
Model Answer 2:
Nowadays most countries in the world have set up public hospitals and schools for residents' overall health and improvement. Yet the disagreement is never stopped, as the opponents insist that it is not the governments' responsibility to do so.
Public medical care and education is of great importance to individual physical and mental wellbeing, especially for those from less wealthy background. To be precise, not everyone can afford the whole family's medical consumption and children's tuition fees. But only people with healthy body and healthy mind have the capacity to contribute to the country's development. Obviously, a nation's prosperity cannot rely on minor rich residents, who can pay for their own health care and education, alone. In addition, governments' tax revenue comes from all social status. It indicates that all citizens have equal rights to enjoy operations and schools paid by governments and governments should support them.
However, it is not realistic that government is responsible for all spending of residents' health care and education. Decisions regarding the level of government's investments should involve the concern of a country's economic situation. In other words, it would be a significant financial burden if such expenses took up too much of government's budget. Accordingly, it is not reasonable to require government to take all responsibilities. For example, Chinese government can only support children free primary and middle school education, in regard to the more than 1 billion population.
Personally, I believe that people have the equal rights to accept public health care and education, and it is sensible and fair to arrange that. By doing so, citizens' overall well-being can be guaranteed; hence these educated people are all able to contribute to the country's development and society's peace and harmony. However, it is not government's responsibility to pay for a huge population's college and all the health care spending, since it is not realistic to do so. In that case, the charity, or other public organisations can participate in this project as well.
Model Answer 3:
As people have paid taxes to the government, it is believed that they should be provided with free healthcare and qualified education. However, others disagree with the statement, as they think that each individual should be responsible for his or her own health and education. The following essay will discuss about both views in details.
On the one hand, many people believe that it is the government's responsibility to provide standard healthcare and decent education to their people. As people have paid income taxes, property taxes, value added taxes and other kinds of fees to the government, these funds should also be beneficial for the people as well. Some of the budget should be allocated to fund medical activities and educational programs. Having a lot of educated and healthy residents brings many benefits for the government, as there are a lot of skill and productive labors in the country who would develop the country's economic sector.
On the other hand, some people believe that health and education is a personal matter as it is the responsibility of each individual to maintain own their health and education. They disagree if education and healthcare should be funded from the taxes. They think that it is unfair, because some people might be working hard and paid a large amount of taxes, but others might be indolent or jobless and get the same benefits from the government. Therefore they believe that healthcare and education should be standalone institutions, and each people should pay for getting good education and maintaining their own health.
In conclusion, to a certain point I would agree that it is the government's task to provide education and healthcare for their people, as some poor people might not be able to get good education and decent healthcare. However, although these services might be provided by the government for free, each individual's must be responsible for their own education and healthcare, as these services are funded by taxes that are paid by the public.
17. Do you agree or that improvements in technology reduce the role of Olympic Games.
Olympic Games are the world's most important international athletic competition. They bring together thousands of the finest athletes to compete against one another in a variety of individual and team sports. Although technology is having an impact on the Olympics in a profound way I disagree that it is reducing the role of Olympic Games. I believe that technology allows us to more fully appreciate everything about the competition and the athletes who commit their lives to fulfill their dreams.
To begin with, winning an Olympic event is the highest honour people can achieve even in the modern times. Unknown athletes get the chance to attain national, and in particular cases, international fame. Secondly, Olympic Games are the best medium of cultural exchange even today. Different people of different countries, religions, cultures etc get together at Olympics and the participants get a chance to know about other cultures. The Games also constitute a major opportunity for the host city and country to showcase themselves to the world.
Although the technological realities of the modern times have brought many changes in the Olympic Games of today, they have not reduced the importance of the Olympic Games. Technology plays a part in every aspect of these games, from the first torch relay hand-off to the closing ceremonies. Athletes and trainers use technology in preparing for the games to optimize their training. Sports equipment manufacturers use design technology to build improved apparatus, gear and more that will enable their clients to deliver a high level performance. Broadcasters use technology to better inform viewers of all aspects of the events. As a consequence, more and more people are exposed to these games.
People who opine that technology has reduced the role of Olympic Games say so because the ugly claws of commercialism have crept into this field also. As a result, the Olympics has shifted away from pure amateurism to professionalism. The win-at-all-cost attitude has come up and many use unethical means to win. They also say that only the rich can afford technology to boost their performance and this creates a gap between the rich and poor. I still believe that without inherent ability no amount of technology can make anybody a winner or loser.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, technology has brought colossal changes in The Olympic Games of today but in no way have they decreased the role of Olympic Games.
18. Food can be produced much more cheaply today because of improved fertilizers and better machinery. However, some of the methods used to do this may be dangerous to human health and may have negative effects on local communities. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Yesterday's fiction is today's reality. Such colossal developments have taken place in agriculture which we could not even think of earlier. It is a highly debated issue as to whether these improvements in fertilizers and technology are a blessing or a curse. In my opinion, there are both pros and cons of this situation but the advantages are much more than disadvantages.
On the positive side, farmers now have a wide range of selection, in terms of seeding, irrigation and use of pesticides and fertilizers. Technology has saved people from tedious work and in the mean time increased the production markedly. Machines save the cost of labour and also save time, so productivity has increased dramatically. All this is needed to meet the demands of the burgeoning population.
Furthermore, genetic modification of foods has given us such species which need little or no insecticides and no fertilizers. The quality of food has also improved. For example, fish gene has been added to tomato to make it frost resistant. A nut protein has been added to soya bean to increase the protein content. We have more choices and even the colour and shape can also be changed. We have sweeter fruits and square watermelons and yellow coloured ones. Finally, factory farming, in which animals are fed nicely so as to increase their meat, is also the need of the hour.
On the downside, such technology has reduced the need for manpower and many people are now jobless. This has a negative effect on communities. Genetic modification is also considered unnatural and as it is relatively new, people are also concerned about its long term harmful effects. Some methods are also dangerous to environment as there is contamination of the neighbouring crops by the altered gene pool. Last but not least, the rich countries can use this technology and further increase the gap between the rich and the poor.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that as every garden has weeds, such developments have their pros and cons. We should know where to draw the line and take maximum advantage of this technology minimizing its harmful effects.
19. Leisure is a growing industry, but people no longer entertain themselves as much as they used to because the use of modern technology has made them less creative. Do you agree or disagree?
I disagree with the statement that people do not entertain themselves as much as they used to because of modern technology. I believe that modern technology has not made people less creative. In fact it has changed the definition of leisure and the lifestyle of people.
Modern technology has changed our definition of leisure. Earlier, leisure meant going out and meeting people, playing outdoor games, going to cinema to watch movies and so on.
However, today, leisure time is full of choices. We have so many things to do within the four walls of our house. We can watch countless programs on national and international channels; we can play online games; we can chat with friends and relatives in any corner of the world; we can do arm-chair tourism by which we can visit any historical place or museum sitting in our arm-chair. That is why perhaps it looks as if we people do not entertain ourselves as much as we used to in yesteryears.
Another reason why people don't entertain as much as before is also not because of technology. Technology has, in fact, given us more time to enjoy but we can't strike a balance between work and play. We have become workaholics. Life in the past was simpler.
People worked for basic needs. Now work is not just a way of life. It is for personal fulfillment. We set goals for ourselves such as a house or a car. We choose this way of life. Now we have improved standard of living but this has come at a very high cost.
Finally, I would like to state that the given statement is flawed because nowadays people specially take out time to entertain themselves. This can be evident from the mushroom growth of leisure centres such as hotels, restaurants, fun parks and spas. Tourist places are full of people and train and air reservations have to be done well in advance.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, technology has not made us less creative. We entertain ourselves more than earlier times but the ways of entertainment are different and technology has given us more choices than before.
20. The advantages brought by the spread of English as a "global language" will outweigh the disadvantages. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?
Presently, English is called a universal language as half of the world population is using it. It is the gateway to the world, the ability to speak in English is considered as one of the hallmarks of a cultured person. It is undeniable to say that, global language has resulted in both positive and negative effects which must be addressed accordingly.
To begin with, there are many benefits of extending a universal language. Through global language, a particular country can develop its business relations and increase its economic growth. Professionally, in today's globalized world, those who are fluent in English have a competitive advantage over other candidates.
From the social perspective, English language allows people to enter a wider cultural world, which help in developing healthy relations among them. This critical ability is building a foundation for good business and social relations. The wide spread use of the English language is narrowing the gap of communication and people all over the world have accepted English as language to use for communications. The books, history and research papers written in this language are really great in number and the spread of this language has made it possible to let people around the world learn the same technology and resources.
However, one can not deny the drawbacks which are derived from global language. Adopting universal language is leading to westernization of culture. Nowadays, people speak global language instead of their own language. As a result, they are forgetting their indigenous dialects and culture and their children are following the same. For example, Bangladesh is well-known for its culture and traditions all over the world, but, presently, many people have forgotten their culture and language.
In conclusion, I would argue that, benefits created by English language far outweigh the disadvantages.
