For Book7 - Model Essays - Please Print This Out

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.
286 words
These Essays Are Written by Kien Tran and Are Protected by Law. Plagiarism* and
Stealing Will Not Be Tolerated and Plagiarists Will Be Reported to The U.S. Copyright
Office. Any Violator May Run the Risk of VISA Rejection from Any Consulates or
Embassies around the World as He or She Will Be Permanently Blacklisted.
*Plagiarism: The practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off
as one’s own.
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
as one’s own.
Are famous people treated unfairly by the media? Should they be given
more privacy, or is the price of their fame an invastion into their private
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.
315 words
as one’s own.
Nowadays, most large companies operate multinationally. To what
extent those companies should have responsibility towards local
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
as one’s own.
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
as one’s own.
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)
as one’s own.
In many countries, people now wear Western clothes (suits, jeans) rather
than traditional clothing. Why? Is this a positive or negative
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)
as one’s own.
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
as one’s own.
It is impossible to help all people in the world, so governments should
only focus on people in their own countries. To what extent do you
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
as one’s own.
Many people say the gap between rich and poor people is wider, as
rich people become richer and poor people grow poorer. What problems
could this situation cause and what measures can be done to address
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
as one’s own.
Some people think it is more important for government to spend public
money on promoting healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than
to spend it on the treatment of people who are already ill. To what
extent do you agree or disagree?
It is true governments around the world have been working hard

determining the best budget allocation mix between preventing future
and treating current illnesses. Although millions of ill people need
medical treatments now, governments should still prioritize the
preventive avenue over curative one.
The first reason is that this is a more effective way to spend money on
healthcare. First, by focusing on promoting healthier lifestyle, the public
will be able to take care of themselves instead of relying on their
governments. For example, by building more parks and sport facilities,
people will have the places and tools to improve their own health by
exercising. Second, spending money on preventive approach ensures
that current and future citizens will be able to live longer and happier
than did previous generations. If preventive approach was not focused
enough, future generations would have the same or even worse living
conditions and lifestyles, which deteriorates their health.
It is also more efficient to spend money enhancing lifestyle. First, as

dieting and active lifestyles come into play, there would be fewer needs
for medical treatments in the future. Therefore, governments would in
turn save the efforts that could have been put on curing illnesses. In
addition, money would also be saved as there would be fewer cases
requiring medical treatments. The money saved would be spent on
improving the quality of hospitals and clinics, enhancing public health
even more.
In conclusion, it is more effective and efficient in the long run to focus

on preventive approach. This benefits not only the governments but also
the citizens’ health.
262 words
as one’s own.
Doctors should be responsible for educating their patients about how to
improve their health. Do you agree with this?
In recent years, the question of who should take the responsibility in

educating the public on healthcare has become a topic of discussion.
Although patients can educate themselves on this subject, doctors
should still be ones who hold the most responsibility.
One of the most compelling reasons is that doctors are the only ones
who are qualified to provide knowledge to patients. First, since every
doctor has to go through rigorous education and training, his or her
advice is more trustful than other sources of information. In fact, if
patients educate themselves using the Internet or books, there will be a
good chance that they encounter misinformation or bad advice, which
can be detrimental to their health. Second, not two patients’ health
situations are the same, therefore only doctors can tailor their advice to
their patients individually. Since specialized equipment is needed for
diagnosis, the Internet, books and other sources of information can never
be close substitutes to doctors when it comes to education.
Doctors should hold the responsibility also because they receive money
from their patients, either directly or indirectly. Since this is a business
transaction, doctors inherently have to fulfil their services, which also
involve education to patients. If doctors did not educate patients to
improve their health, money would be channeled into other entities that
can fulfil the same responsibility. Furthermore, as a highly respected
profession, doctors need to transcend their regular duties. For instance,
doctors should teach not only their patients, but also the general public,
especially those who cannot afford medical services.
In conclusion, educating patients about how to improve their health

should be one of many responsibilities of doctors. This practice will
benefit not only patients but also doctors themselves.
286 words
as one’s own.
Crime rate, in most countries, is often higher in urban areas than in
rural areas.
Why do you think that is?
What can be done to reduce the crime rate?
Crime rates in most countries markedly vary among different areas, which
suggests different approaches in dealing with crime. Given that crime
rate is higher in metropolitan areas than it is in rural ones, identifying the
reasons behind this pattern is key to finding the solutions.
There are a number of reasons why this pattern exists. First, since urban
areas are more ethnically diverse than rural ones, the likelihood of conflict
leading to crime among people with different values and belief systems
is higher. For example, the greater lack of familiarity and mutual
understanding among individuals in urban areas can feasibly get people
into unnecessary fights, which potentially leads to crime. Second, since
metropolitan areas are more densely populated, citizens have to compete
for limited opportunities and scarce resources, leaving other individuals’
life at stake. This means that those who cannot compete with the other
few successful would have a higher tendency to commit crimes, even
petty ones, just to make a living.
However, there are a great deal of solutions to diminish crime, in either

big cities or rural areas. First, enforcing stricter punishments would act
as a deterrent against the motivation to commit crime. Realizing that the
costs of breaking a law were higher, every potential criminal would think
twice. Second, since many offences can be traced back to the lack of
understanding among people from different backgrounds, local officials
should organize more sociocultural activities and gatherings to improve
mutual relationships and resolve conflicts. For example, although
Toronto is the most multicultural city in the world, crime rate is among
the lowest thanks to such activities and cultural events.
In conclusion, the fact that urban areas are more populous and diverse
can explain the pattern. By focusing on the differences among people
and the law, crime rates in either cities or rural areas would decline.
306 words
Some believe that more academic subjects such as chemistry,
physics and history should be taught in schools, while others believe
that students will derive more benefit from studying practical
as one’s own.
subjects, such as motor mechanics and cooking. Discuss both views
and provide your own opinion with relevant examples.
Educational institutions around the world have been trying to find the best
mix between academic and practical courses. Although academic
subjects have been the primary focus for a good number of years,
practical ones are gaining more attention recently.
On the one hand, academic courses, such as chemistry and history, are
of vital importance for students. First, by studying those courses at high
school, students are equipped with the fundamental knowledge to
continue their higher education, especially in science fields. For example,
in order to be an environmental scientist whose job is to preserve the
environment, a student certainly needs to acquire complex knowledge
and be fluent in academic theories. Second, academic courses are
necessary because they help graduates land higher-paying jobs. In fact,
most high-salaried workers are required to have complex understandings
of their disciplines, which can only be achieved if they have taken
academic subjects.
On the other hand, practical courses, such as mechanics and cooking,

are necessary for the majority of people. First, since many people do not
want to commit years of their lives to a college education, practical
subjects allow the majority to make a living much earlier. This would have
a variety of positive impacts on the society as there would be fewer
unemployed workers, which also means fewer crime cases. Second,
companies nowadays tend to place more emphasis on workers who have
solid practical experience. For instance, in order to be a hotel manager,
one is required to finish his or her training courses, which are usually non-
academic.
In conclusion, although academic courses are important to some,

practical ones are crucial for most. Depending on the job market and
career path, students should be able to find their best mix.
286 words
as one’s own.
In the future, it seems more difficult to live on the Earth. Some people
think more money should be spent on researching other planet to live,
such as Mars. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this
statement?
It is true that the Earth would not be able to survive eternally, potentially
pushing all species including mankind to the brink of extinction. Although
focusing on finding other Earth-like planets seems plausible, the benefits
still do not justify the costs.
Space exploration has been and will always be extortionately expensive,

in terms of both labor and resources. First, if space exploration were to
be the main focus, recruiting more scientists and administrative staff
would be inevitable. In fact, the salaries and wages paid to astronomers
and research teams are the highest among industries, which would add
to current deficit. Second, in order to conduct various required
experiments and bring objects into space for the purpose of finding other
planets, space-exploration projects usually consume a great deal of
natural resources from the Earth, such as oil and metals. This means that
there would be less input to develop other industries and grow the
economy.
In addition, the chance of finding other planets is very slim and even if
humans succeeded, it would still be virtually impossible to bring humans
there. First, distances between stars and planets are vast, given human
longevity. For example, it would take millions of years for the fastest man-
made space craft to reach the nearest star, by which time all humans
would no longer exist. Second, what appears more realistic is solving
current environmental problems on Earth, which requires more attention
from scientists, the media and the public alike. Climate change, for
example, should top the list since it does and will directly impact all
species living on Earth in the near future.
In conclusion, finding other planets needs a great amount of resources

but offers little returns for humans. By focusing more on existing issues,
humans can make the Earth friendlier to live in.
299 words.
as one’s own.
Studies suggested that nowadays children watch much more
television than they did in the past and spend less time on active or
creative things. What are the reasons? And what measures should
be taken to encourage children to spend more time on active or
creative things?
It has been suggested that children nowadays lean towards reactive

activities, like watching television, and away from proactive ones. Given
that this trend leads to a whole host of issues for children, identifying the
reasons behind it is key to finding the solutions.
There are a number of reasons why children spend more time watching
television. First, since there are thousands of entertaining shows, movies
and music at disposal, which are conducive to relaxation and instant
mental rewards, children are highly engaged most of the time. In fact,
most of the objects and motions they see on television are new to them,
which tends to trigger their curiosity and evoke their feelings, either
negative or positive, conditioning them to watch more. Second, shrinking
playgrounds and parks deprive children of outdoor activities. For
example, recent housing projects in Hanoi are set to close some of the
playgrounds, making children resort to reactive activities such as
watching television.
Nevertheless, there are also a variety of solutions, mostly parental, to

reverse this trend. First, parents can help their children refrain from
watching television excessively by setting a daily limit. By encouraging
children to consistently adhere to the limit, they will be less reliant on
amusing contents, especially ones that are addictive. Second, even if
there are no playgrounds, modern cities usually offer indoor activities and
sports, which are also considered proactive. Municipality, corporations
and parents should cooperate to create, maintain and promote these
activities and indoor playgrounds to the new generation, perhaps offering
free entrance for children under a certain age or supporting low-income
families.
In conclusion, although the trend might be difficult to reverse, there are

ways to get around it. The coordination among city officials, corporations
and parents can certainly make a difference in children’s lifestyle.
295 words.
as one’s own.
Every day, millions of tons of food are wasted all over the world. Why do
you think this is happening? And how can we solve this problem?
Food waste has been highlighted as an emerging issue that maybe

escaping broader public attention. Given that the issue has the potential
for significant environmental impacts, identifying the reasons is key to
finding the solutions.
There are a number of reasons why a large amount of food is wasted

every year. First, since most fresh foods, such as meat and vegetables,
are perishable, they usually have expiry or best before dates. This means
that if people do not consume them quickly enough, foods will be expired
and no longer edible or free of hazards, which results in food waste.
Second, the way humans prepare foods also contributes to food waste.
For example, if foods are badly prepared, either at home or in the
restaurant, people will refuse to eat and food waste will often occur as a
result.
Nevertheless, there are also a variety of solutions to mitigate this trend.

First, even if some foods are inedible for humans, they can be composted
or used to feed livestock. This would not only benefit the agriculture
industry but also help reduce land filled organic matter that can be
damaging to the environment. Second, even if the food waste is not
inedible for livestock, it can still be used as a material to produce
renewable energy. For example, some nations have taken steps to turn
organic matter from food waste into biogas, generating electrical power
at very low costs.
In conclusion, even though food waste seems inevitable in today’s world,

there are various ways to recycle it. Feeding livestock and generating
energy can be two of the most useful ways to tackle food waste.
272 words
as one’s own.
In many countries, government spent a large amount of money on
improving internet access. Why is it happening and do you think it is
the most appropriate use of government money?
Government spending on improving Internet access often constitutes a

large chunk of national budget, causing some public controversy in
recent years. Although some might oppose this idea due to its seemingly
high costs, this is among most beneficial ways to spend government
money.
There are a number of reasons why governments choose to improve

Internet access. First, the Internet has been proven to be the most
effective and efficient way to connect people, even if they are in different
countries. In fact, since the cost of Internet communication is very low,
even zero in some areas, both governments and citizens can start to give
up landlines, which in turn saves a great deal of money. Second, many
countries have recognized the significance of a knowledge economy,
which entails constant communication and exchange of ideas. Plenty of
evidence suggests that by streamlining the flows of knowledge, a
country’s economy can grow faster as there is a causal relationship
between the two indicators.
Considering all relevant factors involving costs and benefits, improving

Internet access is the most appropriate use of government money. Aside
from connecting people and the knowledge economy, faster Internet
access can also ensure government and corporation transparency and
integrity. For instance, since almost every behavior, either good or bad,
can be videotaped and disseminated via the Internet, government and
corporations would be very mindful of their actions. Not only that, the
Internet equalizes access to information for everyone, which enhances
social fairness. It is clear that nowadays anyone with a computer and an
Internet connection can have the same opportunities as others because
he or she can acquire the knowledge that had long been considered a
secret to the majority.
In conclusion, improving Internet access is the best way to spend

government money these days. It not only connects people at the lowest
cost but also fosters economic growth in a variety of ways.
315 words
as one’s own.
It is often thought that the increase in juvenile crime can be attributed to
violence in the media. What do you think is the reason for a growth in
the rate of juvenile crime? What solutions can you offer to deal with this
situation?
It is true that juvenile delinquency has been rampant, especially in

metropolitan areas, in recent decades, leading to a whole host of other
issues. Although some believe that violence in the media is what causes
the increase in juvenile crime, some other causes should be taken into
account as well.
There are a number of reasons why juvenile crime is growing. First, since
most teenagers nowadays have access to the Internet, juvenile crime
becomes more organized, well-planned and secure than it was in the
past. For example, most of the recruitment or crime planning work can
be done seamlessly through a social network channel that vows to
protect user’s privacy, making it a challenge for the police to prevent real
crime in advance. Second, some large cities, like Chicago, are rife with
drug trafficking targeting young adults. Plenty of evidence suggests that
human’s brains are susceptible to the negative influence of drugs, which
often triggers the desire to commit juvenile crime.
Nevertheless, there are also a variety of solutions to alleviate this issue.

First, Internet police can disguise themselves as normal young adults
who wish to join those illegal groups for investigation and evidence
gathering purposes. The police would have the opportunity to not only
prevent the particular crime beforehand but also understand the
underlying structure behind any contemporary juvenile delinquency.
Second, law enforcement should take step to tighten drug control to
ensure little to no drug supply in the market. For instance, increasing fines
and penalties for drug-related activities would act as a deterrent for drug
traffickers and buyers.
In conclusion, the Internet and the drug industry are two contributing
factors to juvenile crime. Internet police and law enforcement should
cooperate to minimize the issue to a manageable level.
as one’s own.
Some people think that the best way to run a business is within the
family.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of a family run business?
It is true that family-run businesses have never stopped gaining in

popularity around the world. Although this model is applauded by many
experts, there still exists many limitations.
On the one hand, there are a number of advantages of a family-run

business. First, since the business is operated and overseen by family
members, such as children and wife, or relatives, it is difficult for any
outside parties to steal away the control of the business. This means that
the family has an absolute power and control over strategic decisions,
staffing, or payroll, which will certainly be of great benefit to all family
members. Second, since family-run businesses are private corporations,
they are not subject to complex financial reporting requirements. As a
result, the business can save a great deal of money on hiring a team of
professional accountants to prepare external reports and deal with
government stakeholders.
On the other hand, family-run businesses are not without downsides.

First, business-related conflicts among family members have the
potential to sabotage any family relationships. For example, a dispute
over either business ownership or salaries might lead to a quarrel or even
an avoidable family estrangement. Second, non-family employees
working for a family-run business might view this business practice as
unfair towards them. For instance, even if they perform exceptionally well
and make enormous contributions to the company, chances are they will
not be recognized enough compared to those who are family members.
In conclusion, given the clear advantages a family-run business have,

there are still limitations. By acknowledging these limitations, the
business owner can find ways to dodge them.
266 words
as one’s own.

For Book7 - Model Essays - Please Print This Out

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

For Book7 - Model Essays - Please Print This Out

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Some people think that instead of preventing climate change, we

In recent decades, global warming has been receiving a great deal of

It is more economically sound to actively prevent climate change than to

In conclusion, actively combating global warming must be regarded as

In recent decades, there have been a growing trend towards traveling to

Scientists in different branches need to travel to remote natural

There are also a number of benefits for tourists traveling to isolated

In conclusion, traveling to remotes natural areas benefits students,

In conclusion, famous people are treated fairly by the press since it is

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

It is true that responsible corporate behavior contributes to broad-based

Another compelling reason is that foreign companies can substantially

In conclusion, the bar for corporate responsibilities towards local

In conclusion, since mobile phones have nothing to do with antisocial

In recent decades, having children later in life has become a growing

There are a number of reasons leading to that trend. First, in order to

In conclusion, the sacrifices of starting a family at young age are too

In recent decades, Western clothes have gained in popularity in many

There are a number of reasons leading to that trend. First, thanks to

In conclusion, the development should be embraced because of its

In recent decades, movies and TV series have been imported at an

On the other hand, imported movies and TV series bring a lot of

In conclusion, only focusing on producing local films and shows will do

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

In conclusion, governments cannot ignore people living in distress from

Wealth inequality has been receiving endless public attention and

There are a number of problems caused by wealth inequality. First, wealth

In conclusion, although wealth inequality can cause a whole host of social

It is true governments around the world have been working hard

It is also more efficient to spend money enhancing lifestyle. First, as

In conclusion, it is more effective and efficient in the long run to focus

In recent years, the question of who should take the responsibility in

In conclusion, educating patients about how to improve their health

However, there are a great deal of solutions to diminish crime, in either

On the other hand, practical courses, such as mechanics and cooking,

In conclusion, although academic courses are important to some,

Space exploration has been and will always be extortionately expensive,

In conclusion, finding other planets needs a great amount of resources

It has been suggested that children nowadays lean towards reactive

Nevertheless, there are also a variety of solutions, mostly parental, to

In conclusion, although the trend might be difficult to reverse, there are

Food waste has been highlighted as an emerging issue that maybe

There are a number of reasons why a large amount of food is wasted

Nevertheless, there are also a variety of solutions to mitigate this trend.

In conclusion, even though food waste seems inevitable in today’s world,

Government spending on improving Internet access often constitutes a

There are a number of reasons why governments choose to improve

Considering all relevant factors involving costs and benefits, improving

In conclusion, improving Internet access is the best way to spend

It is true that juvenile delinquency has been rampant, especially in

Nevertheless, there are also a variety of solutions to alleviate this issue.

It is true that family-run businesses have never stopped gaining in

On the one hand, there are a number of advantages of a family-run

On the other hand, family-run businesses are not without downsides.

In conclusion, given the clear advantages a family-run business have,

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen