Choose any essay below. Each study panel contains the original question, the complete sample essay, practical writing suggestions, and sentence-formation patterns.
It is important for everyone, including young people, to save money for their future. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Saving money for future purposes is necessary for everyone, including younger people. I completely agree with this statement, as it provides security and helps build good spending habits.
Having savings gives a sense of security during unexpected situations. Since life can be unpredictable, having a plan B to support yourself in any possible unforeseen event is important for feeling secure. For example, a person may face sudden health issues. If they have savings, they can utilize that money for treatment without over worrying. Saving money for unforeseen events is even more important for young people than for everyone else because unlike older individuals who already have a stable career and income, young individuals often face restrictions on working hours during school days or cannot find employment at all after graduation. By saving in advance, they can use their savings later when they need it most, during an emergency situation.
Additionally, learning to save money enables people to develop rational spending habits. When a person is learning to save money, they are learning to manage those funds by making thoughtful choices and not purchasing unnecessary products. These habits eventually help them become mature and build responsible behavior. Because habits are easier to develop early in life, it's important to begin saving at a young age. For instance, by saving to pay their own school fee or personal expenses instead of purchasing unnecessary things such as trendy outfits, young people can gradually become more responsible for their finances. Such habits and qualities can be difficult to foster later in life.
In conclusion, it is essential for everyone, even young individuals, to start saving money. These savings can eventually be utilized in unexpected circumstances and learning to save money helps develop healthy spending habits.
Access to clean water is a basic human right. Therefore every home should have a water supply that is provided free of charge. Do you agree or disagree?
There is no doubt that access to clean water is a basic human right. Therefore, some people argue that every home should receive a free water supply. I completely disagree with this point of view since this proposal could place a financial burden on the government and lead to excessive water consumption.
Supplying water for free could burden the government financially. Although people have the right to clean water, building a water system that connects to every household in a country would require an exorbitant amount of money to cover the construction cost. This expenditure would include hiring professional architects to design the blueprints, recruiting engineers to install the pipes, and paying for various materials. When such a big project is carried out for every household, the total cost may exceed trillions of dollars. If the government lacks sufficient funding to undertake the construction, it may have to suspend it for several years, resulting in a failure to deliver the right to clean water to many homes.
Additionally, offering a free water supply to citizens could lead to excessive use of water. If water is provided free of charge, many individuals might misuse their right to free water and consume more than they actually need. For instance, they might take a shower for more than an hour or leave the water tap running non-stop when cooking, since such behavior does not cost them any money. This would cause a serious problem if free access to water is provided to all households, because water is a limited natural resource, and the total amount of overused water accumulating from every household would be a huge waste of this valuable commodity.
In conclusion, water should not be provided to all citizens free of charge, owing to the fact that this could put pressure on the government's budget and give rise to excessive use of water.
The working week should be shorter and workers should have a longer weekend. Do you agree or disagree?
People should work fewer days and have an extended weekend. I strongly support this practice because it enables workers to maintain high levels of performance during the workweek and fully recover over the weekend.
A shorter workweek helps workers sustain high performance. Nowadays, many positions demand extensive physical or mental effort from employees. Working intensely for five consecutive days can lead to burnout, increasing the likelihood of errors. For example, Amazon delivery drivers often work over eight hours a day to ensure timely delivery of packages. By the end of the workweek, many experience physical exhaustion, which results in slower delivery times or even packages being delivered to the wrong addresses. Implementing a shorter workweek helps prevent overworking, ultimately reducing errors and guaranteeing efficient and accurate delivery of packages.
In addition, a longer weekend allows complete recovery from work, as individuals can participate in activities they love without feeling rushed. Consider camping enthusiasts. With a standard two-day weekend, much of their time is consumed by packing and traveling, leaving little opportunity for relaxation in nature. In contrast, with an extended weekend, they can pack leisurely, travel to their destination without haste, and have enough time for activities like fishing or hiking. As a result, they can truly unwind and recharge, returning to work with a refreshed mind and reduced stress.
In conclusion, I believe that the workweek should be shortened and the weekend should be extended, as this approach not only makes high performance sustainable but also facilitates full recovery from work.
The most important aim of science should be to improve people's lives. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
While enhancing human well-being through science is important, I believe that by no means should it be solely the primary goal of science. Equally important are safeguarding the environment and respecting animal rights.
In the practice of science, the improvement of human lives should never come at the cost of the environment. As the world's population increases, creating better ways to produce food, such as more effective pesticides, becomes vital. Yet, if the focus remains solely on boosting crop yields, the pesticides developed may not only affect pests but also make the land infertile, worsening the preexisting issue of food scarcity. This highlights the importance of taking a balanced approach to scientific advancement that focuses on caring for both human lives and the health of the environment that they depend on.
Furthermore, testing drugs on animals raises serious ethical concerns. Ensuring the safety of novel medicines for human use is critical, but prioritizing human health over animal rights is morally unacceptable. Animals, much like humans, experience emotions and share the right to live freely and without unnecessary suffering. Subjecting them to prolonged captivity solely for testing can result in both physical and psychological suffering. As moral beings, we have a responsibility to treat animals compassionately and avoid such acts of brutality in the name of human betterment.
In conclusion, although improving people's lives is an important aim of science, I believe that it should never overshadow other vital objectives within the field. We must also give equal priority to environmental preservation and animal welfare, striking a balance between scientific progress and ethics for a better world.
Some people believe that professional workers such as doctors and teachers should be paid more than sports and entertainment personalities. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There is an ongoing debate regarding whether professionals, such as doctors and teachers, should receive higher compensation compared to athletes and entertainers. I strongly disagree with this argument as I believe that an individual's earnings should be based on their market value and the scarcity of their talent and skills.
Market value should be the determining factor for compensation, and when considering market value, it becomes apparent that athletes and entertainers have a significant advantage. Unlike doctors and teachers, whose influence is limited to their patients or students, sportsmen and entertainers can reach a global audience through various media and events. This can be best illustrated by the pop star Taylor Swift, whose music videos have been viewed billions of times on YouTube. The widespread interest and viewership that entertainers and athletes generate attract sponsors and advertisers, ultimately leading to substantial revenue generation. Thus, it is only fair that athletes and entertainers are rewarded more due to their global reach.
Moreover, the rarity of exceptional talent in sports and entertainment sets these professionals apart from others. While many individuals can pursue careers in fields like medicine or engineering through hard work, there are only a few who possess extraordinary abilities in sports or entertainment. For example, there may be numerous aspiring musicians, but only a handful such as Taylor Swift, can consistently produce music that deeply resonates with people. Similarly, the extraordinary achievements of athletes such as Michael Phelps are extremely rare. The rarity of such talent increases their market value and justifies higher compensation.
In conclusion, it is entirely reasonable that athletes and entertainers are paid more than professionals in other industries due to their high market value and the scarcity of their exceptional talent.
Nowadays celebrities are more famous for their glamour and wealth than for their achievements, and this sets a bad example to young people. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Celebrities today are primarily known for their glamour and wealth rather than their accomplishments, which sets a negative example for young individuals. I completely agree with this notion because the superficial nature of celebrity culture can lead to a distorted mindset and a pursuit of immediate financial success among the youth.
The allure of celebrities can contribute to the development of a distorted mindset among young individuals. Consider Kylie Jenner, who has amassed millions of followers on Instagram due to her flawless, doll-like appearance. The fame she has gained mainly based on her physical attributes may lead young people to believe that their popularity hinges on their physical attractiveness. This can foster a shallow mindset that values external beauty over qualities like intelligence, kindness, or talent.
Moreover, celebrities who are famous for their wealth and extravagant lifestyles can influence many young individuals to prioritize quick financial gain over personal growth. When young people witness seemingly rapid and effortless wealth accumulation by celebrities, without seeing the hard work behind the scenes, they may undervalue education and skill development, instead seeking easy money. This is evident in those who drop out of college to become TikTok influencers, hoping that their trivial videos will go viral and bring them overnight fame and wealth.
In conclusion, the prevalence of celebrities gaining fame based on their allure and riches rather than their achievements has a negative impact on the younger generation. It fosters a distorted mindset and encourages the pursuit of immediate financial gain over long-term personal development.
It was predicted that, with the development of technology, people in the 21st century would have much more free time than in the past. To what extent has this prediction come true?
It was projected that the 21st century would bring about a significant increase in leisure time for individuals, thanks to technological progress. However, I find this projection to be entirely unrealistic because both individuals and businesses today are compelled to exert considerable efforts in order to keep up with the constant and rapid changes in technology.
In today's fast-changing world, people must allocate time to learn new technologies. If individuals remain stagnant, relying solely on the knowledge and skills they acquired during their university years to sustain their livelihood, they will inevitably find themselves out of work as they fail to keep pace with the latest technologies used in the workplace. This means that people no longer have the luxury of simply relaxing and unwinding after work; they must dedicate time to acquiring new knowledge in order to remain relevant in today's world.
Furthermore, companies are required to constantly innovate their products or services to stay competitive in the market. Take the automotive sector, for instance. With Tesla revolutionizing the market through their innovative electric cars, traditional automakers now face the daunting task of making substantial efforts to transition their manufacturing processes and supply chains to produce electric vehicles. This complex transition cannot be accomplished swiftly if employees work only eight hours a day and five days a week.
In conclusion, the rapid pace of technological breakthroughs has significantly reduced people's free time, as both individuals and businesses must tirelessly strive to stay abreast of these advancements to remain competitive in this ever-evolving world.
University students always focus on one specialist subject, but some people think universities should encourage their students to study a range of subjects in addition to their own subject. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some argue that universities should inspire students to explore various subjects outside of their field of study. I completely agree with this notion, as it can lead to more competent professionals, as well as encourage entrepreneurship.
By exploring various subjects, students can develop a self-sufficient approach to problem-solving, which can increase their competence at work. Consider UX (user experience) designers who also possess a basic understanding of coding. Their coding knowledge can help them grasp the technical limitations of their designs, enabling them to create more practical designs that front-end developers can easily implement. On the other hand, UX designers without basic programming knowledge may waste valuable time discussing the feasibility of their designs with developers.
Moreover, inspiring students to pursue diverse subjects can also nurture entrepreneurship. Students who concentrate on only one subject may not have a holistic understanding of different disciplines, making it difficult for them to conceive business ideas. Conversely, a diverse range of subjects equips students with the skills and knowledge necessary to start their own businesses. Take Elon Musk, for example. Had he solely studied physics, he may have become an excellent engineer, but his economics background has given him a unique advantage in scaling his inventions and making them commercially viable. In other words, the combination of physics and economics studies has allowed him to develop technologies that are both technically advanced and economically feasible, contributing significantly to his success as an entrepreneur.
In conclusion, universities should encourage students to explore different subjects, a practice that not only fosters more competent professionals but also inspires entrepreneurial ventures.
Employers should give their staff at least four-weeks' holiday a year to help employees get better at their jobs. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
To improve employee performance at work, employers should provide at least four weeks of vacation per year. I completely disagree with this statement. For one thing, extended vacations may negatively affect employee productivity upon their return and, for another, such vacations can lead to burnout for the remaining employees who are required to cover for their absent colleagues.
While taking a brief vacation can boost employee morale and energy, an extended vacation may lead to reduced productivity when employees return to work. This is because such a lengthy break may cause them to become detached from their work and struggle to regain their momentum. For instance, software engineers who take a prolonged break may not have the opportunity to practice their technical skills, which could result in a loss of proficiency in the programming languages, frameworks, and tools they regularly use. In the constantly evolving technology industry, it can be challenging for employees to restore their work pace and catch up with the latest developments if they have been away for an extended period.
Moreover, the idea of providing long vacations to employees can cause additional stress and burnout for those who remain at work. If all employees take a long vacation at the same time, it may be unrealistic to expect that the company can still operate effectively. Consequently, some have to remain and cover for their absent colleagues. And the longer their absent colleagues are on vacation, the more work they have to take. As a result, they may experience burnout due to excessive workload, and their job performance may decrease as a consequence.
In conclusion, I disagree that providing a vacation of at least four weeks can enhance employee performance in the workplace. Such extended vacations can cause employees to experience a decline in productivity upon their return and lead to burnout for those who remain at work.
Large companies should pay higher salaries to CEOs and executives compared to other workers. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
CEOs and executives of large companies should receive higher salaries than other workers. I completely agree with this statement because those in executive positions have broader knowledge and bring more value to their companies than the average worker does.
Top managers deserve higher salaries because their broad knowledge and skill sets across different areas allow them to see the interconnections between different parts of the business, which in turn enables them to make decisions that lead the whole company to move forward quickly. For instance, Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple, was not only good at designing products, but he also had a great understanding of market trends, which helped him lead Apple to innovate fast. In contrast, the average worker is usually single-skilled and only capable of completing tasks within their own role.
Additionally, in comparison to the average worker, CEOs bring much more value to their companies, which is why large companies become and remain successful. For instance, even though warehouse workers at Amazon work hard and contribute to the company's operations, their contributions do not have the same impact on the company's growth and success as the strategic decisions made by CEOs like Jeff Bezos. Without Bezos' vision to launch the Prime membership and expand into the cloud computing and streaming media industries, Amazon would not have been the global giant it is today. It is reasonable that companies pay their employees based on the amount of value they create, rather than the amount of work they do.
In conclusion, the high pay gap between executives and other employees is justified because of the broad knowledge and skills they possess, and the great value they add to their companies.
Universities should accept equal numbers of male and female students in every subject. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Universities should admit the same number of men and women in every subject. I completely disagree with this statement. My main reasons for this are that (1) there might be natural differences in the interests and strengths of male and female students, and (2) forcing universities to pursue gender equality could lead to issues with merit-based admissions.
First and foremost, it is important to recognize that males and females have different strengths and interests, and it would be unfair to force a certain gender ratio in certain subjects. For example, it may be more common for men to be interested in engineering or computer science, while women may be more drawn to fields such as nursing or education. By requiring equal gender ratios in all subjects, universities would be limiting the choices and opportunities available to students based on their gender rather than their individual strengths and interests.
Additionally, it is important to consider the fact that there may not always be an equal number of qualified male and female applicants for certain subjects. Colleges should not lower the admission standards or accept unqualified applicants simply to meet a gender quota. The primary goal of universities should be to accept the most qualified and capable students, regardless of gender.
In conclusion, I totally disagree with the notion that universities should be held accountable to accept an equal number of males and females in every subject. It is essential to consider the unique strengths, interests, and qualifications of each student and base admissions decisions on merit rather than imposing quotas based on gender.
The growth of online shopping will one day lead to all shops in towns and cities closing. Do you agree or disagree?
One day, all brick-and-mortar stores will close because of the growth of e-commerce. I disagree with this statement for two reasons: customers can get experiences in physical stores that they cannot get online, and many products require hands-on inspection before purchase.
Firstly, offline stores offer customers experiences that are unavailable online. This is because these stores are more than just places to shop; they are also where people socialize. For example, at Starbucks, people meet friends and talk about their lives while enjoying their drinks. Placing a coffee bean order through an impersonal Internet store, such as Amazon, will never allow this level of gratifying social interaction. This means that there will always be a place for retailers who offer socialization.
Additionally, certain products are better bought in person. It is true that people are now making more online purchases of items like clothing and tech gadgets since these items have little or no difference from the ones sold at physical stores. However, good agricultural products, for example, will always come from a local market. This is because, at a grocery store, a person can see, touch, and even smell the produce to ensure freshness and wholeness. Fresh fruits and vegetables ordered online, in contrast, may suffer bruises during shipping and are usually unreturnable, a situation that will keep the local market in operation.
In conclusion, not all actual shops will be replaced by online platforms because their environments offer customers experiences and products more suited to in-person than online purchase.