Ietls writing - Day 10

The graphs provide comparisons between men and women in a particular nation on different types of housework they involve in and how they allocate time for such tasks.

In overview, it is evident that men are more responsible for house repairs tasks. On the other hand, women spend most of their time cooking and cleaning.

Looking at the first chart, it is clear that 80% of women cooks and more than 60% is in charge of cleaning. Conversely, the figures in men are significantly lower, with only 60% and 40% involving in these works respectively. However, about 20% of men takes reponsibility in house repairs, nearly as twice as women. When it comes to pet care, men and women equally share the same interest, with approximately 10% each.

The same trend can be observed in the average time the two genders spending on each task. It is noticeable that cooking is the most time consuming task in both sides, with 85 minutes in women and 60 minutes in men. Additionally, men emerge to spend more than nearly 4 times compared to women in house repairs, with 20 minutes and 5 minutes respectively.

Vẫn 20 phút địt mẹ @xamvner234 @horus @suchawanderer @TatHuan

The graph compares daily fruit and vegetables consumption among UK citizen, divided by different age groups, as reported in 2006.

In the overview, it is evident that females consume more fruit and vegetables than the opposite side in all age groups. Additionally, the difference between the two genders become least significant at the age of 75.

At an early stage, females already display a slightly higher interest in healthy foods, with 16% of women eating five or more portions of fruit and vegetables daily compared to only 15% of males. From the age of 19 to 64, the both genders have the tendency to choose plant-based food in their daily meals. The figures for both genders peak in the age group of 55-64, with nearly 35% of women and 33% of men consuming these types of food every day.

After the age of 64, the two genders gradually decrease the amount of healthy food consumed daily. By the age of 75, males and females equally share similar interest in greens, of 25% choosing these types of food daily.

@TatHuan @xamvner234

The both charts compare the differences in average temperatures and rainy days between two Australian cities in each month.

In the overview, it is evident that Brisband always consistently has a higher temperature range than Canberra. This city also has more rainy days in the early beginning and the end of each year.

Looking at Examining the average daily temperature, the both cities experience their hottest seasons from January to February. Brisband's highest temperature is 30 Celsius while Canberra's hottest peak temperature is slightly lower, at 27 Celsius. Conversely, Canberra has a much lower minimum temperature, nearly 1 Celsius in June and July, compared to Brisbane, with where the coolest temperature is 10 Celsius.

When it comes to In terms of the number of rainy days, from November of previous year to May, Brisbane apparently witnesses more days with rainfall than the other city, especially in February, where the figure is nearly two times higher. However, thing starts to change from June to September, where Brisbane's number quickly drops to just 7 days, when whereas it increases to 10 days in Canberra.

@TatHuan Đéo ai comment nữa, tao tự sửa bằng chat GPT luôn

The data compares the amount of milk produced between four different nations from 1990 to 2010, as measured in litres.

In the overview, it is evident that the Netherlands consistently led in milk production throughout the period. Conversely, while Guatemala produced the least amount of milk.

In 1990, It is noticeable that the Netherlands and Australia were the two nations that produced the largest amount of milk, each with more than 11.2 millions litres each. The remaining two countries were far left behind, where the annual combined milk production was just around 100 thousands litres.

In the following ten years, the Netherlands and Australia slightly decreased their yearly milk production, to around 11.1 millions litres each. On the other hand, Tanzania and Guatemala' figures nearly doubled, to 142 thousands and 55 thousands litres respectively. The next decade continued to witness the rises in Tanzania and Guatemala while experience a significant drop of almost 2 millions litres in Australia. Additionally, the Netherlands continued to be the dominant nation with approximately 11.5 million litres of milk produced in 2010.

@TatHuan sao đéo thấy mày viết bài nào vậy tml?

Thạch Sinh:

The data compares the amount of milk produced between four different nations from 1990 to 2010, as measured in litres.

In the overview, it is evident that the Netherlands consistently led in milk production throughout the period. Conversely, while Guatemala produced the least amount of milk.

In 1990, It is noticeable that the Netherlands and Australia were the two nations that produced the largest amount of milk, each with more than 11.2 millions litres each. The remaining two countries were far left behind, where the annual combined milk production was just around 100 thousands litres.

In the following ten years, the Netherlands and Australia slightly decreased their yearly milk production, to around 11.1 millions litres each. On the other hand, Tanzania and Guatemala' figures nearly doubled, to 142 thousands and 55 thousands litres respectively. The next decade continued to witness the rises in Tanzania and Guatemala while experience a significant drop of almost 2 millions litres in Australia. Additionally, the Netherlands continued to be the dominant nation with approximately 11.5 million litres of milk produced in 2010.

@TatHuan sao đéo thấy mày viết bài nào vậy tml?

Bấm để mở rộng...

Tao bận quá

Rich countries often give money to poorer countries, but it does not solve poverty. Therefore, developed countries should give other types of help to the poor countries rather than financial aid. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Despite a significant amount of money has been poured into third-world countries, poverty in these nations has not been solved. Thus, some people argue that rich countries should find a different way to help rather than solely rely on financial aid. In my opinion, I believe that poorer countries need both types of support.

There are some reasons why solely providing financial aid is insufficient for poor countries to solve their economic situations.

Firstly, they have not yet built a developed political system capable of leveraging financial support. Corruption is one of the main causes for the misallocation of donations. In such case, rich countries should not only give money but also find a peaceful way to offer their advice and support to develop a sustainable governing system.

Secondly, the poor do not know how to use the money with their current limited knowledge. If they keep spending on old technologies, their production industries will not be competitive enough in the global market. However, it is very hard for a purely new countries to come up with advanced inventions. Throughout the history, scientists have had to fail thousands of experiments for one successful invention, and clearly that process is very costly and time-consuming.

Lastly, national prosperity is made up of individual wealth, and education is clearly the most important factor for a person to escape of poverty. Therefore, developed countries should offer educational supports, such as sending voluntary teachers, providing schooling supplies or offering scholarships for talented students.

In conclusion, financial support alone is not sufficent and other types of help are vitally necessary for the thrive of a nation.

Douma Xàm sập lâu quá, anh em sao rồi?

Thạch Sinh:

Rich countries often give money to poorer countries, but it does not solve poverty. Therefore, developed countries should give other types of help to the poor countries rather than financial aid. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Despite a lot of money has been poured to third-world countries, poverty in these nations has not been solved. Thus, some people argue that rich countries should find a different way to help rather than solely rely on financial aid. In my opinion, I believe that poorer countries need both types of support.

There are some reasons why solely providing financial aid is insufficient for poor countries to solve their economic situations.

Firstly, they have not yet built a developed political system capable of leveraging financial support. Corruption is one of the main causes for the misallocation of donations. In such case, rich countries should not only give money but also find a peaceful way to offer their advice and support to develop a sustainable governing system.

Secondly, the poor do not know how to use the money with their current limited knowledge. If they keep spending on old technologies, their production industries will not be competitive enough in the global market. However, it is very hard for a purely new countries to come up with advanced inventions. Throughout the history, scientists have had to fail thousands of experiments for one successful invention, and clearly that process is very costly and time-consuming.

Lastly, national prosperity is made up of individual wealth, and education is clearly the most important factor for a person to escape of poverty. Therefore, developed countries should offer educational supports, such as sending voluntary teachers, providing schooling supplies or offering scholarships for talented students.

In conclusion, financial support alone is not sufficent and other types of help are vitally necessary for the thrive of a nation.

Douma Xàm sập lâu quá, anh em sao rồi?

Bấm để mở rộng...

Xin thường niệm Nam mô tiếp dẫn đạo sư @vailonthat A La Hán ma ha tát.

Some countries achieve international sports by building specialised facilities to train top athletes, instead of providing sports facilities that everyone can use. Do you think this is positive or negative development?

Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people believe that it is more beneficial for a country to provide sporting facilities solely for professional athletes rather than for the whole population. In my opinion, I think this approach has its own advantages and disadvantages.

It is clear that top athletes will have advantages in competing in international competitions when a nation focuses its budget on building professional-use specialised equipment as it benefits them in many ways: they have the chance to train with the equipment that is currently used in international competitions, thus increasing their performance compared to those who are still playing with the old standard ones; they are also less likely to suffer from injury during their training sessions as the equipment has higher quality. Additionally, as a nation's budget for sport is limited, by focusing on providing resource solely for top athletes, the country can afford facilities for a wider range of subjects, so that their players can take part in many different sports and competitions. Lastly, one country can save maintenance cost as the equipment will be used more frequently when available for national population.

On the other hand, in order to find talents, a country must encourage its people to compete in sports. Some countries like China or the USA have already increasingly invested in building sport equipment for national use, so that they can find hidden gems among their citizens. Furthermore, playing sport is vitally important for someone's mental and physical health.

In conclusion, I think one nation must balance its budget on building sport facilities between professional and general use.

Nowadays, not enough students choose science subjects in university in many countries. What are the reasons for this problem? What are the effects on society?

Highschool students in many countries recently have the tendency to enroll in economic and social programs rather than science courses due to a variety of economic and psychological reasons. While it might solve the short-term imbalance in the workforce, it could leave long-term negative impacts on the society.

One of the main reasons is that the global economy has long been developed though several industrial revolutions, with thousands of successful cooperations having been built. Therefore, these firms have reached the point where the demand for industrial innovation starts to drop, causing a decrease in the demand for engineers, because employees are only expected to maintain and run the current flow. On the other hand, companies are looking for talents who can manage and expand their businesses, resulting in higher demand for economic talents.

Another factor heavily effects students' choices is that science programs often take longer time and effort to complete. Thus, some students shift their preference towards less stressful courses, such as economic, arts and social science courses. Additionally, younger generation seemingly does not want to live in a cooperative culture and prefers to create their own start-ups.

In my opinion, this trend creates both positive and negative impacts on society. In the short-term, it balances out the gap between the supply and demand for labour resources. However, in the long run, we would not have enough engineers to invent new technologies, which I believe is the most essential factor for the prosperity of a nation

In conclusion, I believe that the government should carefully pay attention to this trend and propose new policies to educate and encourage students to make the most suitable choices based on their national economic situation.

The best way to teach children to cooperate is through team sports at school. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is believed that the most effective method to help children understand the art of teamwork is to play team sports at school. In my opinion, I totally agree with this approach.

Nowadays, people live in modern society where adults often have full-time jobs and kids spend most of their time at school. Therefore, giving our children the chance to play while learning is very important, and taking part in team sports at school is probably among the most effective educational methods.

Firstly, when a child plays team sport with other kids, he can visually compare his own performance with that of others. Eventually, that kid will understand his own strengths and weaknesses, then grow a sense of self-awareness and the ability to see the differences between oneself and others. For example, through playing soccer, one can realise if they are most suitable for being a goal keeper, a defender or a goal keeper. After that, children will find it easier to find a strong network, where one's strengths are the other's disadvantages.

Secondly, through mutual engagement in a certain team sport, our kids have the chance to practice communication skills, as they will naturally be forced to talk and listen in order to come up with the best strategy, or simply to cooperate effectively. Additionally, the players also have the same set of rules, regulations, and especially, the same goals so they already have some forms of initial connection.

In conclusion, I believe that schools should pay attention to creating opportunities and encouraging children to engage in team sports, as it is one of the most effective ways of teaching them about teamwork.

While many people go to university for academic study, more people should be encouraged to do vocational training because there is a lack of qualified workers such as electricians and plumbers. Do you agree or disagree?

People believe that instead of choosing university for academic career, students should be advised to enroll in vocational training as the demand for skilled workers is on the rise. In my opinion, I think the two types of education both have positive impacts if being applied properly.

It is clear that vocational training fee is often lower compared to that of an university program, so it is affordable for a wider range of people. Additionally, vocational training requires less time and effort to complete, because it focuses on teaching the most related knowledge and practical experience. Conversely, students often find university programs are not only expensive but also more stressful and time-consuming. In the current economy where there is a shortage of high-skilled workers, vocational training is obviously a better option as it is widely approachable, and at the same time, is capable of providing necessary skills in the shortest time at lower cost.

However, bachelor degree holders are often more successful and get promoted to higher position in a company, because university programs offer subjects in many different categories, such as management and economy. Furthermore, as the economy is full of uncertainty and no one can predict what is going to happen next, so in the case of a crisis or a black swan, university graduated will be less dependent and have more options because they have been trained with variety of subjects and skill-sets.

In conclusion, I believe that the two type of education mentioned have its own advantages and disadvantages and should be applied based on the current economic situation.

Some people think that governments should ban dangerous sports, while others think people should have freedom to do any sports or activity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion

It is highly controversial whether government should legally prevent people from taking part in dangerous sports or give them the freedom to play any activity. In my opinion, I believe that both sides have their own advantages if approached properly.

To start with, let us take a look at why dangerous sports should be banned. First of all, it is worth considering that with the expansion of social media, children are easy to get in touch with some viral videos of people playing risky sports and try it themselves without parental permission. Under some circumstances, this behavior could end up being life-threatening. Another factor to consider is that even though players deliberately join the sports, their acquaintances will be those who suffer in the case of unfortunate accidents, leading to serious mental health problems arising.

On the other hand, it is not fair for those who are experts and have been practicing these kinds of sports for many years. Even thought it is considered dangerous and life-risking for the majority of people, it is also a way for some individuals to enjoy life and challenge themselves. On top of that, taking part in dangerous sports does not directly and purposely cause harm to the society, and should not be considered as illegal. Therefore, governments should alternatively pay attention to regulating these activities and create a safer environment, such as legalizing professional training programs for the sports with certificates of qualification.

In conclusion, I believe that both views have their own strengths and weaknesses and it should be seriously taken into account in light of the current situation of each country.

Some experts believe that when a country is already rich, any additional increase in economic wealth does not make its citizens any more satisfied. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Answer​

It is believed that people living in developed countries do not find it fulfilled when there are additional increases in their national economy. In my opinion, I do not agree with this view.

Due to the fact that citizens living in rich nations have had mostly all of their fundamental needs covered, the marginal utility of money will gradually decrease. Therefore, these people, after reaching a certain level of satisfaction, will not work for money as hard as their poorer neighbors.

On the other hand, even though they do not have to worry about living in the lack of physical needs, wealthy nation's citizens still have higher goals in the mental and spiritual realm. Many of these people continue to spend their time supporting the community around their area or even in other nations. Some continue to work and earn largely additional amount of money so that they can keep their businesses, pay their employees or simply keeps chasing their dreams. Elon Musk is the richest man alive and he continues to work 14 to 16 hours a day. The billionaire still want to earn more money so that he can build a stronger financial foundation and make his dreams of turning humanity into a multi-planet species come to reality.

In conclusion, despite having all of their physical needs covered, people living in wealthy nations still find an additional increase in economic wealth satisfied because they can use that extra money to solve many problems and to bring a better life for humanity.

An increasing number of people are choosing to have cosmetic surgery in order to improve their appearance. Why are more people choosing to have operation to change the way they look? Do you think this a positive or negative development?

Nowadays, it is very common for someone to have their appearance improved with the advancement of plastic surgery. In my opinion, I believe the harm it might cause could out-weight the benefits for long-term development.

There are physical and psychological reasons behind these decisions. Firstly, it is reported that woman are often more obsessed with their looks than man. Therefore, after undergoing a plastic surgery and having their appearance improved, they can be more confident about themselves and overcome the beauty-related anxiety that they may have suffered for years, resulting in a better and more fulfilled life. Secondly, there are countless people suffering from serious health problems that can be cured by plastic surgery.

However, aside from the inevitable health reasons, people who undergo surgery often do so due to psychological factors and, In my opinion, it would leave negative impacts on the society. Firstly, when there are more people getting cosmetic surgery, it strengthens the false belief that man merely judge women based on their looks, which is only partly true as it ignores the fact that one's inner beauty is also vitally important. Secondly, plastic surgery could potentially leave permanent damages to the health of those getting it. Some people might encounter prolonged headaches or experience a metabolic deficit. Last but not least, children might be negatively impacted and become anxious about their appearance due to the influence of material world.

In conclusion, despite some positive impacts that plastic surgery might bring, I strongly believe that in the long term, it would cause adverse effects on the development of society

Đm giật mình lên đây mà đéo thoát. Tao thi 13/1 này chúc tml may mắn

Some people say free time activities for children should be organized by parents. Others say that children should be free to choose what they do in their free time. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It is still debatable whether parents should control their children's activities or grant them the freedom to decide what they prefer in their free-time. In my opinion, I strongly support the view that parents should initially suggest a range of suitable activities and let their children choose from within that collection.

To start with, it is worth to put into consideration why parents should organize their children's free-time activities. Firstly, the parents can actively keep their kids from life-threatening activities. Children are the most curious creatures and they have the tendency to willingly try out everything, and eventually get involved in uncomfortable or even risky situations. For example, there was a trend on Tik-Tok called "Blue Whale Challenge", where children were forced to engage in fatal challenges. Without parental consent, it was reported that some children unfortunately had passed away while trying to achieve the challenge. Secondly, parents can guide their children towards the activities that are beneficial for their development in the future. In stead of playing video games or surfing on social media, they can practice martial arts or play musical instruments.

However, giving children the freedom to decide what they do is also beneficial in many aspects. The child, at a very young age, can gradually develop the ability to make decisions and form an independent mindset. They also learn to be responsible for their actions. With all of these skills developed, children will be more confident when they grow up.

In conclusion, I believe that children should always be granted the freedom to decide what they do and be responsible for their decision. However, it would be dangerous, especially without parents consent.

In some countries young people are encouraged to work or travel for a year between finishing high school and starting university studies. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages for young people who decide to do this .

In many parts of the globe, taking a gap year travelling or going straight to the labour market is highly encouraged after a student finish high-school. In my opinion, this approach comes with advantages and disadvantages, and should be applied properly.

To start with, it is worth considering the advantages of such. Firstly, students who take a gap year or apply right away for a job can save money and time when making career decision later. Nowadays, it is reported that many students are not aware of their strengths and weaknesses, and they have to switch back and forth between different subjects at university to understand themselves, which is very costly as university tuition fee is getting more expensive. Secondly, gap-year takers also have the opportunity to take a break from lessons and textbooks, refresh their mind and interact with people from different background and culture, thus having their social and communication skills improved. Steve Jobs had spent years of his youth to explore Asian culture. He once described it as one of his most valuable experience that had helped him create Apple.

On the other hand, a gap year could also bring negative impacts on one's life. If one does not have a proper plan for their trip, they will not receive any benefit. On top of it, a gap-year taker also put themselves in financial troubles if they do not a have good financial background to support them. Additionally, they will lose a ton of opportunities as their friends are already one year ahead in university and will fill out all well-earned positions.

In conclusion, taking a gap year clearly has its own advantages and disadvantages. Therefore it is highly recommended to carefully create a plan and define a clear goal, so that one can enjoy and gain the most possible benefit.

The advantages of the spread of English as a global language will continue to outweigh its disadvantages. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is still highly controversial whether English continuing to be the global language will be more beneficial to the development of humanity. In my opinion, I strongly believe the advantages it brings about will definitely outweigh its disadvantages in different aspects.

It is undeniable that the dominance of English-speaking countries in the global economy is one of the most important factors promoting the popularity of English. However, that monopoly is being challenged more than ever due to the miraculous development of other countries, especially China. The nation has rapidly increased its worldwide trading volume and is expected to surpass that of the US in the next decades. On top of that, as one of the largest markets, there is an increasing number of international companies coming to China, along with waves of entrepreneurs and highly qualified workers settling down in the country, resulting in a spike in the demand for learning Mandarin.

However, people still believe that English will continue to be the dominant language in the global market. Firstly, the US will continue to be largest economic entity, because most of top 500 largest companies' headquarters are located in the US. Furthermore, the US dollar is still the strongest currency and being used as the global currency. Regarding linguistics, Mandarin is one of the most challenging languages as its characters are not familiar to those using alphabet words, posing a barrier for new learners from the west.

In conclusion, I believe that the continuing of using English as the global language is more advantageous and beneficial than any other alternative options.

Some people think that the best way to improve road safety is to increase the minimum legal age for driving a car or motorbike. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is still controversial whether it is the best way for a government to increase the minimum of legal driving age. In my opinion, I believe this approach, despite having some apparent benefits, cannot effectively solve the problem at a larger scale.

To start with, it is worth approaching the positive aspects of this solution. By raising the limit of legal driving age, one nation can potentially encourage a large group of population to commute by public transportation instead of relying on personal vehicles, resulting in the decrease in the number of traffic accidents. The second positive aspect is its psychological impact. The mentality of young individuals are not fully formed, as their brains have not yet fully developed. Therefore, it is harder for them to aware the dangers of driving at excessively high speeds.

However, as the causes of road safety issues are not solely from young drivers, the approach proposed is not likely to solve the problem. One of the main reasons, especially in developing and under-developed countries, is the inefficient qualification of roads. In my country, the roads are not wide enough, forcing motorbike riders to share the same lane with trucks and containers. This is particularly dangerous, as big vehicle drivers often find it hard to notice the smaller ones. On top of that, dangerous roads are often rural areas, as they are not safely maintained and frequently have holes and blockers on the surface.

In my conclusion, in stead of focusing solely on the legal age of the driver, people should shift their attention toward the road quality to enhance traffic safety.

Many people no longer read newspapers or watch TV news programmes. Instead they get news about the world from the Internet. Is this a positive or negative development?

Internet has gradually replaced news and TV programs as the main source for people to get updated about the world. In my opinion, even though it has some negative impacts, I believe this trend will bring more benefits to the development of humanity.

To start with, it is worth considering the negative aspects of it. As it grants the freedom for people to generate their own content without legal consent, the creators often spread negative news and make them viral for their own popularity, resulting in a false awareness of how the world actually is. On top of that, bad people frequently take advantage of the technology to heat up the inherent internal conflict between people living in the same country, causing political uncertainty in the nation. Secondly, it changes people's habit and emotion. By reading the new and get update constantly, content consumers, especially young generation, often get addicted to it and spend many hours on the screen. It is reported that the number of hours children spend on social media has been increasing constantly and causing physical and mental problems for our future generation.

However, the Internet news creates a source of information at a lower cost and equally provide access for a wider range of people. Additionally, it is easy to get access to, not regarding to one's locations or conditions. Secondly, with the invention of social media recently, users from different backgrounds can easily become content creators. Therefore, the news on these platforms is more diverse and constantly updated, so that readers and viewers do not have to rely on a selected perspective as it was before. In fact, they can see any of their problems or concerns from different angles. At this point, it is harder for one media company to create and spread fake news for their own benefits.

In conclusion, I believe that Internet is a more reliable source of information. Thus, governments should pay attention to creating policies and regulations to provide a more transparent and safer platforms for their citizens.

The government should be responsible for providing retirees with financial support and care. While many people think that citizens should save money to take care of themselves when they are old. Discuss both views and give your opinion

It is still highly controversial whether the retired citizens should be financially supported by their governments or they should themselves be responsible for their later stage of life. In this essay, I will analyse both views and give my own perspective.

To begin with, it is worth considering the responsibility of the government over the retired workers. In modern world, governments in many countries have developed a social security program that is specifically designed for retirees by collecting a proportion of their incomes. Therefore, citizens who are retired or lack of labour capability must be taken care of by those programs. On top of that, by stabilizing and supporting old individuals, the government is also enhancing the overall security and stability of the entire society. European countries are famous for the happiness index, as their older citizens are well taken care of both financially and emotionally.

However, especially in the top wealthy countries, the citizens are overly dependent on the social programs, resulting in an increasing number of people who spend all of their savings and solely rely on financial support when they retire. This poses a financial burden on the future generations, where they have to not only feed their own families but also support other people around them. Additionally, as the government's capability is not unlimited, there might be a time when they are unable to extend their assistance to those in need.

In conclusion, despite having well-designed social programs, citizens should not solely rely on their governments and should prepare a sufficient amount of money to actively take care of themselves.

Some people believe that children should study all subjects at school, while others think they should only study subjects they are good at or find interesting. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It is highly controversial whether children should study all subjects or merely focus on the classes of their favour or advantage. In this essays, I will discuss the positive impacts of each approach and give my opinion.

To start with, it is worth considering the benefits of forcing students to attend all classes. Essential subjects, especially science-based classes such as mathematics, physics or chemistry are often seen as overly complicated, because these subjects come with complex terminologies and formulas that require lots of effort and time to grasp. Therefore, by marking these courses as mandatory, educational institutions could potentially prevent children from ignoring these subjects. On top of that, by following a unified educational program, one nation can optimize its educational resources to create the most effective teaching method.

However, letting children decide their preferred subjects also benefits their studying journey in many ways. First of all, it gives students the opportunity to develop self-awareness and the ability to make decision in the early stage of their life. These skills will definitely help them later on when they have face difficult situations. Additionally, children can reach their highest potential by learning the subjects they find interesting, resulting in extraordinary achievements in the future. Thomas Edison was rejected from school because the teachers thought he would be unable to graduate. However, Edison had proved that he was ahead of his time and became one of the most greatest people in the history, by focusing on the things he found interested in.

In conclusion, I believe the optimal approach should be students are forced to learn the important subjects and, at the same time, granted the freedom to choose the optional subjects they are good at or find interesting.

Some people feel that manufacturers and supermarkets have the responsibility to reduce the amount of packaging of goods. Others argue that customers should avoid buying goods with a lot of packaging. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It is highly controversial whether producers and whole sellers should decrease the amount of packaging of their products or consumers should avoiding buying goods with too much packaging. In this essay, I will discuss each approach and give my opinion.

To begin with, it is worth considering the responsibility of retail consumers for reducing packaging consumption. When making a change, such as improving their packaging progress, companies have to carefully take the production cost into account as they also compete with others. Therefore, by avoiding choosing the goods with lots of packaging, customers can directly support those making changes for the better and encourage other firms to follow. For example, in my hometown, citizens often bring their bags when going to supermarkets, so that they can buy the products with less packaging. This has encouraged local manufacturers to reduce the use of plastic on their production line.

On the other hand, manufacturers and supermarkets are also responsible for packaging reduction. In stead of being inactive, producers can invest their money on finding an alternative material that is stronger and more endurable, or improving their existing technology in the packaging stage. Besides, with the direct connection to consumers, supermarkets can easily make change and motivate buyers on making more eco-friendly decisions, by simply prioritising a better position or promoting with discounts for the products with less packaging.

On conclusion, I believe that it is the responsibility of manufacturers, supermarkets and buyers for reducing the amount of packaging goods. Without the other half, the change would happen slower and less effective.

Advertising is becoming more and more common in everyday life. Is it a positive or negative development?

Recently, advertising has become increasingly familiar with people's daily life. In my opinion, I believe this cultural shift will cause more harm than its advantages.

To begin with, it is worth considering the positive impacts of this development. Firstly, the increasing frequency of advertisements has offered consumers the opportunity to compare the quality between different products and services. Therefore, customers are more likely to have a clearer judgement, while companies with well-invested products can gain the reputation and benefit they deserve. Secondly, this trend also promotes a higher qualified advertisement market, which used to be dominantly controlled by big media companies, such as magazines or TV Channels. The fact that people frequently get exposed to advertising clearly enhances their taste and judgement for an ads. Therefore, instead of paying for reputation, advertisers are forced to put themselves in the foots of consumers to understand their insight, and come up with the right messages.

However, in the long term, this cultural change will cause more harm to the development of society as it changes the way people view the world, and refine their definition of happiness. Being influenced by the ideal life shown on an advertising board, people might increase their spending to buy the new iPhone, or the famous-branded clothes in order to chase the material happiness. On top of that, this shift also indirectly influences people to purposely create scandals and viral them, so that they can become famous and get advertising contacts from big brands. This clearly has negative impacts on young generations. For example, there was an increase in the number of Gen-Z young individuals, who dropped the traditional educational path to purpose the quick-money scheme by becoming a social media influencer. Unfortunately, many of them were reported to fail and live in a struggling life.

In conclusion, with the development of advertising, people should carefully pay attention to selecting the trust-worthy messages and should not be wrongly driven by the trend.

People are responsible for their happiness. Others feel happiness depends on other factors in their life. Discuss both views and give your opinion?

The debate about whether happiness solely depends on oneself or other factors around them in life has long been a question asked by many philosophers and thinkers. In this essay, I will discuss the two perspectives and provide my opinion.

First of all, it is worth understanding why some people believe happiness is controlled by other factors rather than oneself. One of the reasons might be that human is naturally born as social animals, thus our behaviors and feelings are highly dependent on the manners of the people around us. Individuals, especially young people, constantly look at how other successful people think and live as a way to get accepted to one society. It is clearly shown when looking at how people from different religions and cultures believe and act, such an entrepreneur are happy when his business ideas come true, while a buddhist find the relief in their mind through mediation. Another possible reason is the increasing popularity of social platforms where we frequently get influenced by the lives of successful people. As a result, we gradually see life through their angles and accept their definition of happiness.

However, the recent acceptance of individualization and personalization has also proved that they are the essential foundation of one's life. Therefore, some argue that in order to be truely happy, one should be responsible for their feelings. Chasing the viral hapiness and success might eventually leave the chasers alone with his loneliness and emptiness, because all the luxurious cars and expensive trips do not mean one's live is fulfilled.

In conclusion, I strongly support the idea that one should be in charge of his feelings and happiness.