Choose any one of the seven essays below. Each essay includes the full question, original sample essay, practical writing suggestions, and reusable sentence-formation patterns.
Research indicates that the characteristics we are born with have much more influence on our personality and development than any experiences we may have in life. Which do you consider to be the major influence?
According to research, inborn characteristics have a far greater impact on our personality and development than any experiences we may have throughout life. I agree with the research and will discuss the role of genetics in mental health and a person's ability to bounce back from adversity.
Genetics can influence an individual's risk for developing mental health conditions. Some individuals may be more genetically predisposed to these conditions. For instance, they may feel anxious or depressed when the workload they face is only slightly higher than normal. While external experiences such as therapies may provide some relief, they may not be as effective in these cases. On the other hand, people who have inherited traits such as extraversion may be able to maintain a positive attitude, even when working intensely for long hours.
Resilience is also an inborn trait that is difficult to change through life experiences. For example, consider two people who have been living normal lives but suddenly face financial hardships. One person may not attempt to improve the situation and may even consider suicide, while the other person may be more resilient and work hard to overcome the adversity. In this case, despite experiencing the same environment and previous experiences, the difference in resilience between the two individuals is likely due to genetics. It is possible that the ancestors of the more resilient person developed and improved the trait of resilience over generations.
In conclusion, I believe that inborn characteristics have a greater influence on an individual's personality and development. This essay has supported this view by demonstrating how genetics can make a person more vulnerable to mental health problems and how it shapes a person's resilience.
In many places, new homes are needed, but the only space available for building them is in the countryside. Some people believe it is more important to protect the countryside and not build new homes there. What is your opinion about this?
Across the world there is a demand for additional housing, but the only construction space available is in rural areas. In my opinion, priority should be given to protecting these areas over building new homes there. Otherwise, food production and the balance of the ecosystem may suffer.
Firstly, increased housing development in rural areas can negatively affect the food production industry. The countryside is where farmers grow crops and raise animals for slaughter. If they lost their farmland to real estate development, they would have to stop all their agricultural activities. Given that the world's arable land is already shrinking, the practice in question would magnify these problems and make it more difficult to supply food to the planet's growing population.
Additionally, the loss of countryside and rural areas can result in an imbalanced ecosystem. Vacuuming up the habitats of animals living in these spaces for the benefit of humans will have negative effects on the energy and food cycles. For example, clearing forests for housing development may displace native bat species residing in the trees. This will reduce their population and, in turn, decrease the pollination of nearby plants which serve as food to other animals. As we depend on a well-balanced ecosystem to provide crucial resources, such as clean air, freshwater, and medicine, we must conserve the countryside and find alternative ways to solve the housing problem.
In conclusion, it is crucial to protect the countryside from housing development to ensure adequate agricultural output and to keep the ecosystem in balance.
Some people say it is important to keep your home and your workplace tidy, with everything organized and in the correct place. What is your opinion about this?
Some argue that it is important to tidy and organize your home and workplace. I completely agree with this because it ensures healthy working and personal relationships and also brings ease and efficiency to your life.
Firstly, a messy home and workplace can make professional and personal relationships more difficult. Imagine for a second that a colleague comes to your desk to discuss something you are working on together, only to find notepads, USB chargers, used bottles, and other belongings all over your desk. This can leave the impression that you are a messy and unorganized person who can't work in a professional environment. As a result, your colleague may choose someone else to collaborate with next time. The same can be true of when your home is in a chaotic state. It can discourage friends and family from wanting to visit again and create distance between you.
Additionally, a disorganized environment can make your life inefficient. Suppose you need to be on a Zoom call with your manager in ten minutes but can't find your headphones. You must spend time searching for them and might be late for the meeting. Doesn't this also apply to your personal life? You may find yourself looking everywhere for your matching clothes when going out with friends if your closet is disorganized.
In conclusion, it is of the utmost importance to clean up and streamline your working and living environments. Otherwise, relationships in both the personal and professional worlds may become strained, and the ease and efficiency with which your life operates may suffer.
In some areas of the US, a 'curfew' is imposed, in which teenagers are not allowed to be out of doors after a particular time at night unless they are accompanied by an adult. What is your opinion about this?
Some parts of the United States mandate a curfew, meaning that adolescents are not permitted to leave their homes after a particular time at night except if an adult is present. I completely support the imposition of a curfew because it helps avoid tragedies and create bonding time between parents and their children.
Firstly, a curfew helps prevent tragic events. Some places in the US are extremely dangerous, with high levels of crime and drug use. Adolescents, who might be physically vulnerable, can easily become the targets of crime when they are out at night. For example, it is not uncommon to hear news of teenage girls being raped when out jogging in the evenings. With a curfew in place, tragedies like this can be avoided.
Additionally, curfew time can be a great opportunity for parents to bond their children. Teenagers tend to easily get bored at home and many of them might choose to go out to have fun. With no curfew in place, they might not return home until very late. This means little family time. According to studies, the amount of time that parents spend with their adolescent children is important to the child's emotional, behavioral, and academic outcomes. A curfew allows parents to spend quality time with their teenage children in the evenings, whether that be watching a movie together or taking a walk together in the neighborhood.
In conclusion, it is necessary to implement a curfew in some areas of the US. It helps protect vulnerable teenagers from tragic crimes and also helps develop an important bond between teenagers and their parents.
Some people say that now is the best time in history to be living. What is your opinion about this? What other time in history would be interesting to live in?
Some people feel that we are living in the best time of all (You could also use "the best of all times"). I completely agree with this point of view because of the long life expectancy we have. However, a more interesting time to live would be the post-World War II era, in the U.S.
We now live much longer lives thanks to advances in medical science. Before the 21st century, people often died from infections that can easily be treated today. However, now, even cancer could be cured. Take those with kidney failure. They could get a kidney transplant and go on to live for another five or even ten years. What could be better than having a second chance at life?
However, the best time to be alive doesn't mean the most interesting time to be alive. I think we would have much more fun living in the U.S. after World War II. At that time, the U.S. economy experienced unprecedented growth. Suddenly, blue-collar Americans could afford things once considered high-class. Imagine you are a factory worker living in that era. All of a sudden, you own a television and a car. During off-hours, you can watch your favorite TV shows at home or drive to your favorite places to have a blast. How interesting your life has become!
In conclusion, we are living longer and this makes now the best time to be alive. However, a more interesting time to live would be postwar America because, all of a sudden, you could afford so many things that would have been too expensive to buy.
Some people think that universities should provide graduates with the knowledge and skills needed in the workplace. Others think that the true function of a university should be to give access to knowledge for its own sake, regardless of whether the course is useful to an employer. What, in your opinion, should be the function of a university?
There have always been competing views on what the function of a university should be. I believe its main purpose should be to prepare students for work. For one thing, this offers them a higher return on their investments and, for another other, it is universities' responsibility to provide employers with the kind of talent they need.
To begin with, higher education will be a better investment for students if it focuses on preparing them for work. If people want to learn something for its own sake, they can read some books or buy some online courses, which wouldn't cost them much. They take on huge student loans to go to university in the hope that the knowledge and skill sets they acquire there can get them a high-paying job that allows them to live a good life.
In addition, as important institutions of society, universities should be responsible for cultivating talent that matches the job market. The kind of talent that is in high demand indeed reflects the direction in which society is heading. For example, tech companies are now competing for talented people with computer science degrees because they need them to make new technologies such as virtual reality mature. If universities don't supply the right skills to meet the demands of employers, many industries will advance at a much slower pace.
In conclusion, tertiary education should aim to prepare students for the workplace. If it doesn't, students' investments will be wasted and universities will fail their social responsibility.
Some cities create extra housing by building tall buildings. Other cities do this by building on wide areas of land. Which do you think is the best solution to the problem of housing?
To provide additional housing, some cities construct high-rise buildings while other cities develop land in extensive areas. In my opinion, the latter approach is the best way to solve the housing problem because land in wide areas is usually inexpensive. Besides, high-rise construction can be very costly.
Land in wide areas is relatively low-priced. Only the suburbs of a city have very large parcels of land available for real estate development, and these multi-hectare parcels are generally far cheaper than even one hectare of land in the city center. Lower land prices mean cheaper homes. For example, the average home value in the suburbs of Beijing is 17,000 yuan per square meter versus 58,000 yuan in the city center. Affordable homes are the key to solving the housing crisis because they are exactly what people with low incomes need.
In addition, the higher a building rises, the more expensive the construction is. It takes top architects, high technologies, and reinforcing steel to build residential skyscrapers, and these things can cost a great deal of money. That is to say, these skyscrapers are not where low-income households can afford to live. For instance, about one in four high-rise apartments in New York City sit unsold, while tens of thousands of citizens are homeless. In comparison, low-rise buildings are much cheaper to construct and therefore a much better solution to the affordable housing crisis.
In conclusion, building on extensive areas of land is the optimal method to address the housing problem. For one thing, land in these areas tends to be cheaper and, for another, high-rise construction can be very expensive.