Tiêu đề 1. WT2 - Topic - Model Essay - Examiners ✅

IELTS MS NGỌC ADVERTISING (S) Today, the high sales of popular consumer goods reflect the power of advertising and not the real needs of the society in which they are sold. To what extent do you agree or disagree? It is true that we are increasingly surrounded by advertising by companies that want to sell us their products. To some extent I agree that advertising has an impact on sales, but I would also argue that we do need most of the goods that we buy. Advertisements can certainly tempt people to buy products that they might not otherwise want. A good example could be the mobile phone. Every year people can be seen queuing to buy the latest models, even when they already have a perfectly good phone that does not need replacing. Perhaps it is the influence of marketing that leads us to make these kinds of decisions; we want to stay up to date with the latest fashions or own the newest high-status device. The high sales of the iPhone seem to support this idea. On the other hand, I believe that most people do not buy products because of the advertising alone. There are other good reasons why we make these choices, and there must be some kind of need before a person makes a purchase. New versions of products almost always have improved features that buyers may want. A new car, for example, may have greatly improved safety features, or it may be more economical to run, or it may pollute less. A new phone may allow the user to communicate more quickly or effectively, thus enhancing their quality of life. In conclusion, while advertising obviously influences our buying behaviour, I do not agree that people make decisions that go against their real needs. (261 words) IELTS Ms Ngọc - 0367 458 563
IELTS MS NGỌC AGRICULTURE (S) In spite of the advances made in agriculture, many people around the world still go hungry. Why is this the case? What can be done about this problem? It is true that there are people who go hungry each day across the world, despite the abundance of food that modern farming produces. This essay will discuss the principal cause of this problem and a possible solution to it. In my opinion, poverty is the main reason why hunger continues to be a global problem. Even in the richest countries, issues like unemployment, debt, illness and mental health problems can push people below the poverty line. As a consequence, they may be unable to buy enough healthy food to feed themselves and their families, and this will lead to undernourishment and hunger. The UK is a good example of a developed country where news broadcasts regularly report cases of people who miss meals because they have no money left towards the end of each month. In fact, it is said that many British children go hungry during school holidays when their parents cannot afford nutritious food and free school meals are not available. The best solution to the hunger problem is for governments to work on lifting people out of poverty. This can be done through the creation of new jobs to provide employment opportunities for people who are currently without work. By tackling unemployment, governments can help people financially and ensure that they earn enough money to buy the food that they need. In the UK, for example, it has been suggested that the Government could create thousands of jobs by investing in ‘green economy’ projects, in areas such as clean energy creation and recycling. These initiatives could provide people with good incomes, thereby alleviating the poverty that causes hunger and malnutrition. In conclusion, the problem of world hunger will not be solved by advances in agriculture, but by raising employment levels to reduce poverty. IELTS Ms Ngọc - 0367 458 563
IELTS MS NGỌC ANIMALS (S) Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products. Some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. It is true that medicines and other products are routinely tested on animals before they are cleared for human use. While I tend towards the viewpoint that animal testing is morally wrong, I would have to support a limited amount of animal experimentation for the development of medicines. On the one hand, there are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. To use a common example of this practice, laboratory mice may be given an illness so that the effectiveness of a new drug can be measured. Opponents of such research argue that humans have no right to subject animals to this kind of trauma, and that the lives of all creatures should be respected. They believe that the benefits to humans do not justify the suffering caused, and that scientists should use alternative methods of research. On the other hand, reliable alternatives to animal experimentation may not always be available. Supporters of the use of animals in medical research believe that a certain amount of suffering on the part of mice or rats can be justified if human lives are saved. They argue that opponents of such research might feel differently if a member of their own families needed a medical treatment that had been developed through the use of animal experimentation. Personally, I agree with the banning of animal testing for non-medical products, but I feel that it may be a necessary evil where new drugs and medical procedures are concerned. In conclusion, it seems to me that it would be wrong to ban testing on animals for vital medical research until equally effective alternatives have been developed. (270 words, band 9) IELTS Ms Ngọc - 0367 458 563
IELTS MS NGỌC (S) Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild animals because we humans have no need for them. I completely disagree with this point of view. In my opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild animals have no place in the 21st century. I do not believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit of humans, and there is nothing special about this particular century that means that we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the extinction of any species. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why we should let animals die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every last square metre of land in order to feed or accommodate the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with wild animals, and this should be our aim. I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is usually the protection of natural habitats that ensures the survival of wild animals, and most scientists agree that these habitats are also crucial for human survival. For example, rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilise the Earth’s climate. If we destroyed these areas, the costs of managing the resulting changes to our planet would far outweigh the costs of conservation. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth. In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist, and I believe that we should do everything we can to protect them. (269 words, band 9) IELTS Ms Ngọc - 0367 458 563