Governments around the world spend too much money on treating illnesses and

diseases and not enough on health education and prevention.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Sample answer
I very much agree with the statement that governments are not spending their health
budgets in the best possible way. If governments continue to spend such large sums of
money on treating illness and disease instead of preventing these diseases, then perhaps
they should rename our national health services ‘national illness services’!

Governments will probably argue that it is necessary to spend a large proportion of health
budgets on treating illness because the general population do not live healthy lifestyles and
so become ill. They would argue that most people do not listen to health campaigns. Also,
they would say it is not possible to prevent many illnesses and diseases such as flu and
many types of cancer, as well as accidents and emergencies. The problem with this
argument is that it is very negative because it assumes that people are stupid and refuse to
lead healthy lives. However, when people have the right information, they often do the right
thing – in my country than in the past. I believe that the main reason for this is government
health campaigns, including very strong health warnings on the products.

In my opinion, governments can do a lot to prevent not only illnesses and disease, but also
accidents. Why don’t governments spend more money on installing speed cameras on
roads to make people drive more slowly? That would reduce the number of accidents.

To summarise, I really think that there is a lot that governments can do to prevent illness
and disease to make the world a healthier place to live. In particular, rich governments can
spend more money on scientific research to find the causes of new diseases such as AIDS,
while governments from less well-developed countries can spend money on providing clean
water for all their people. In this way, the world will have less need for expensive cures and
hospitals.

Many people believe that increasing levels of violence on television and in films is
having a direct result on levels of violence in society. Others claim that violence in
society is the result of more fundamental social problems such as unemployment.

How much do you think society is affected by violence in the media?

Sample answer
There are different views on the causes of violence in the world today. Some argue that it is
connected to people's exposure to violent scenes on television and in films, whilst others
point to wider problems in society such as unemployment, poor housing and education as
the root of anti-social behaviour. It is my belief that violence in the media plays a significant
role in encouraging violent behaviour.
A first point is that as levels of violence in the media increase, so does young people's
exposure to it. Even films aimed at children often contain violence and despite the difficulty
of proving whether this directly affects society, it is hard not to be concerned. After all,
children learn through modelling adult behaviour, so if the models they choose are violent
then it is highly likely that they may be violent themselves.

Furthermore, the way violence is portrayed in the media is often stylized resulting in
violence being seen as attractive. People who are easily impressed may then behave
violently themselves. Although research has shown that aggressive behaviour is actually
often the result of having aggressive parents, I still believe that the unrealistic way violence
is shown in the media must have a negative result on society.

Finally, the media has become increasingly globalized which means that violence in
programmes or films can be viewed all over the world. I would argue that the increasing
quantity and level of violence seen around the world must be a negative force in society.

In conclusion, although it is difficult to prove beyond a doubt the effect of violence in the
media on society, I believe that the result on the young, the unrealistic way it is shown and
the global nature of media communications all have a significant and negative impact on
society.

(300 words)

Should the international community do more to tackle the threat of global warming?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge
or experience.

Write at least 250 words.

Sample answer
Global warming has long been recognized as a serious problem by most climate scientists.
Governments around the world have begun to take the necessary measures to address it.
However, as our understanding of the scale and nature of the problem is still developing,
efforts to tackle global warming need to be reassessed from time to time.

Recent evidence suggests that some risk factors associated with climate change may have
been overstated. Sea levels are now expected to rise by approximately one metre, not two
metres, as previously thought. This is because some glaciers and ice sheets appear to be
contracting, the Arctic, for example, while others, such as the Antarctic, appear to be
expanding. Also, it is now thought that the Gulf Stream is unlikely to vanish. It may,
therefore, be possible to scale back plans for flood defences in coastal areas.

However, there is also evidence that some of the consequences of climate change may
have been understated. Tropical forests are now believed to be more vulnerable to drought.
Hurricanes and typhoons may become more severe. Greater efforts should therefore be
made to protect vulnerable populations, especially in tropical areas. Buildings in storm-
prone areas may also need to be re-designed to withstand high winds.
These recommendations, however, address the symptoms of global warming, not the root
cause: the generation of greenhouse gases. Whatever the precise scale and nature of the
consequences of global warming, they are all undesirable. Clearly, more needs to be done
to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Stricter emissions targets should be set and use of
alternative sources of energy encouraged. It would be profoundly irresponsible to do
nothing about the causes of global warming.

(280 words)

Many high-level positions in companies are filled by men even though the workforce
in many developed countries is more than 50 per cent female. Companies should be
required to allocate a certain percentage of these positions to women.

To what extent do you agree?

Write at least 250 words.

Sample answer
In many countries these days, females make up over 50 per cent of the workforce, and
increasingly highly skilled women are taking managerial positions. However, it is still a fact
that high positions such as CEO posts are still dominated by men. Although this is not
desirable, I do not personally believe that imposed quotas are the solution.

Firstly, I believe companies have a right to choose the best person for the job, whatever
their gender, in order to contribute to the success of the business. Forcing companies to
hire, promote and appoint women could negatively affect business in the short term and
even the long term.

Secondly, to my mind the solution to this problem should be solved outside the workplace.
Girls need to be encouraged to take more male-dominated subjects at school and later at
university, and to aspire to do well in their careers. Girls and boys also need to be taught
equality from an early age. This education can take place in schools and career
programmes and in the home.

To those who argue that quotas are a good way to initiate this change, I would like to point
out that artificially imposing rules has not always had the desired effect. When governments
required males and females to receive the same pay for the same jobs, employers simply
changed job titles to ensure that women were still paid less than men. It is my belief that
employers will simply try to find loopholes to get around any such law.

In summary, I do not believe that forcing companies to allocate jobs to women is the best
way to address the imbalance. Rather, it is a question of education and of changing
mindsets so that those who deserve to be at the top will earn it and be appropriately
appointed.

(303 words)