You have the opportunity to visit a foreign country for two weeks. Which country would you like to visit? Use specific reasons and details to explain your choice.

 

I am a person who likes to travel. I think traveling is a great opportunity to meet new people, gain more knowledge and experience, learn new customs and traditions. I did not travel a lot yet, but I am sure I will have a chance to do it. So, if I had the opportunity to visit a foreign country I would visit Egypt. I think it is a great and very interesting country with marvellous history. In the following paragraphs I will give some reasons to support my choice.

 

First of all, I always dreamed to visit Egypt pyramids. My aunt visited Egypt a few years ago. She was very excited after that trip and said that she would return there one more time at any cost. She said that Egypt had impressed her very much with its glorious pyramids and ancient buildings. Second of all, I think that in that country one can touch history, feel the hard breath of workers building a pyramid under the parching sun, see the chain of camels walking in the desert with the huge trunks full of presents for Cleopatra on their humps. Finally, I want to see a real dessert and ride the camel. All my friends who rode the camel say that it is an unforgettable experience.

 

I believe that I will have a chance to visit this beautiful country someday. Unfortunately, now I have plenty of plans and things to do, so, I am afraid that I will not be able to travel for the next two years. I want to finish my education and then find a job, and these things have higher priority then traveling. My husband wants to visit this country too and we made an agreement to make our trip to Egypt on our  five years anniversary which is in two years.

 

In conclusion, I want to add that after my trip to Egypt I will definitely visit Australia. This country is the second one on my list the most wanted to see.

 

 

 

Some universities require students to take classes in many subjects. Other universities require students to specialize in one subject. Which is better? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

  

I think the issue about what is better to specialize in many subjects or choose the one is a controversial one. Each option has its own advantages and disadvantages. Some people prefer to specialize in one subject and know it very well. However, others prefer to extend their range of interests and specialize in many subjects but not in detail. Bellow I will give reasons to support my position.

 

From the one side, learning something in detail brings many benefits. First of all, people gain more knowledge and experience in this area. So, after graduation they are well prepared for their further career in this field. Second of all, they do not spend their precious time on other subjects. This gives them the opportunity to focus on one subject.

 

From the other side, people who specialize in many subjects have more options to choose from. For example, if a person does not make a decision about what he is going to do after graduation it is a very good chance for him to try many fields of study and make the right decision. In addition to this practical benefit a person have the opportunity to extend his range of interests, his communication skills and have better conceptions of things around. Also, a person has a better chance to choose what he really likes to do and make self-realization.

 

To sup up, I think that every person should have a chance to choose. Does he want to specialize in one subject or he wants to take classes in many subjects.

 

 

Some people prefer to spend time with one or two close friends. Others choose to spend time with a large number of friends. Compare the advantages of each choice. Which of these two ways of spending time do you prefer? Use specific reasons to support your answer.

 

Friends are people who support us through our lives. Some people prefer to have one or two close friends. However, others prefer to spent their time with many friends. I think that the number of friends depends on one's personality. Personally, I prefer to have a couple of close friends. In this essay I will analyze both cases and present my view in favor of having a few close friends.

 

First of all, a person can establish closer relationships with a few friends. They can spend their time together, relax, watch a movie in a silence that does not feel awkward. Second of all, close friends have more familiar atmosphere. They can share many beautiful moments and thoughts. For example, I have only two close friends - my husband and my class-mate. I can share my worries and great news and can tell everything  to them.

 

From the other side, having many friends can be hard and stressful. One has to spend his or her time with each of them. I think it is not healthy because a person does not have time to relax and contemplate about his/her own life. I know this type of people. They like to be in the center of everyone's attention. They talk a lot, make jokes, tell stories and rumors. Unfortunately, they basically do not have true friends. They just play and pretend to be friends with other people. There is no doubt they succeed in it, but they spend so much time listening to other's worries and troubles and entertaining them that they practically do not have time for themselves. In addition, it is difficult and almost impossible to relax, discuss interesting issues and just be oneself.

 

To sum up, I am totally agree with the statement that "a friend in need is a friend indeed". I am sure that my close friends will always help me and never betray or turn me down. However, a large number of friends does not allow to establish close and deep relationships.

 

 

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The best way to travel is in a group led by a tour guide. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

 

     

Traveling is the best way to relax, leave one's troubles behind and enjoy the beautiful moments. Some people prefer to travel alone. However, other people prefer to take a tour. I think that these options have their own benefits. In the following paragraphs I will give my reasons to support my answer.

 

First of all, traveling in a group led by a tour guide gives one the opportunity to meet new people, communicate, have a great time in the company. Second of all, one does not have to spend his time looking for historical places that he wants to visit. A professional guide leads group from one place to another. Also, it is very interesting to hear from a guide about historical events that took places there. In addition to these benefits a group led by a tour guide does not feel uncomfortable because of a foreign language. All the tourists need they can ask their tour guide. So, this allows to avoid difficulties to communicate with dwellers of that country.

 

From the other hand, sometimes people like to explore countries without the help of a guide. They like to make their own discoveries, be independent, feel freedom and stay in one town as long as they need. Personally, I think it is a great feeling. Sometimes I want to be alone to contemplate about my life, to forget all troubles that bother me and just relax.

 

To sum up, I believe that it is really up to a person how he or she prefers to travel. Some people even like to alternate traveling alone with traveling in a group led by a tour guide.

 

 

Choose one of the following transportation vehicles and explain why you think it has changed people’s lives. Automobiles, bicycles, airplanes. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

 

The invention of the automobile is undoubtedly one of the humankind's greatest inventions. It had a great impact on people's lives. For several reasons that will be mentioned bellow I think that the invention of the automobile dramatically changed the way people lived before.

 

First of all, automobile allowed people to move faster from one place to another. This in one's turn dramatically increased people's life pace. Distance was no longer of that importance. It was a new means of communication.

 

Second of all, nowadays it is rather difficult to imagine life without a car. People can not do virtually anything without a car. Just imagine for a moment that one does not have a car. One needs to go an office, get a haircut, buy some food, watch a movie, meet one's friend, etc. To get all these done he uses a car to move fast from one place to another.

 

In addition, people can travel using their own vehicle. It is great because one can travel independently, without any train schedules.

 

Finally, I think that the invention of the automobile was inescapable. People could not continue using trains and horses to meet their life requirements. Moreover, just imagine for a moment how many horses people would need nowadays. I think we would talk about horse overpopulation as well as human overpopulation.

 

Unfortunately, the invention of the automobile has some negative aspects. The most obvious aspect of this is road accident. Many people every day suffer from different injuries. Also, with the  invention of the automobile humankind came across with a problem of air pollution. A huge amount of cars every day throw out many poisonous matters in the air. I believe that soon we all will be able to exchange our cars for those, which use sun energy instead of fuel.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? People should sometimes do things that they do not enjoy doing. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

 

I absolutely agree with the statement that sometimes people should do things they do not enjoy doing. Take me for example.

 

I hate to get up early. It is so relaxing to wake up without the help of an alarm clock and to lie fifteen minutes more recalling your dreams.  Nevertheless I get up at 6 o'clock every morning,  put on my T-shirt and shorts and go jogging. Sometimes when I hear the sound of my alarm clock I have a strong wish to put my head under the pillow and fall asleep. Now and then I wake up at night and look at my wrist watch to check how many hours I have left. And I am the happiest person in the whole world because I have a few more hours to sleep. You may ask me "Why do I do it every morning?". Because more than I hate to get up early I love to feel freshness of the morning air. I love to feel a little bit tired and at the same time to be so full of energy. It helps me to feel better all day long.

 

Moreover, I hate shopping. It is my opinion that shopping takes too much time which I can spend doing things I enjoy doing. Nevertheless every week I go to the nearest supermarket because otherwise my refrigerator will be empty and I can not afford to have dinner at the restaurant every day. Besides I like to cook. So, a few hours spent on shopping makes me happy for the whole week. Is not it great?

 

From my point of view when a man has to do things he does not like to he becomes stronger, more responsible and can enjoy life.

 

What discovery in the last 100 years has been most beneficial for people in your country? Use specific reasons and examples to support your choice.

 

I am from Russia. From my opinion the most beneficial discovery for people in our country has been the  discovery of the outer space. Russia is the first country that launched a spacecraft with a man on the board into the space. This event was a big step towards the new discoveries and brought many benefits not only for people in my country. Bellow I will give my reasons to support my answer.

 

First of all, all humankind made a huge step towards the mystery of our creation. Scientists had the opportunity to do the new research and experiments. Many new discoveries were made on the boards of the spacecrafts in the outer space. People from all over the world watched these events. Many books with real colorful photos were written about the beginning of the space exploration. Nowadays we have a big station called "Mir"  in the outer space created on the base of collaboration USA and Russia. Many people work there doing amazing experiments.

 

Second of all, the world became "smaller". People learnt how to exchange information very quickly by use of satellites. Television is broadcasted all over the world by use of satellites. Here in Houston I can watch Russian programs. People got the opportunity to exchange news very quickly.

 

To sum up, I believe that space exploration will bring much more benefits in the future and someday we will learn what is beyond our current galaxy.

 

 

 

 

It has recently been announced that a new movie theater may be built in your neighborhood. Do you support or oppose this plan? Why? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.   

 

I live in a small community. From my everyday experience and observation I can say that the idea about building a new theatre in my neighborhood has some advantages as well as disadvantages. In this essay I will first focus on the reasons why I support this idea and then move on to analyzing  why I oppose it.

 

First of all, I like movies and my husband and I sometimes go to the movie theatre to watch premieres. Unfortunately, it is time-consuming for us. We have to drive about 50 minutes to the nearest movies theatre. So, the idea of having a movie theatre in our neighborhood seems very attractive. It would save us an hour just to get there and another hour to get back home. Another important aspect of it is that in this case we will be able to get to the movie theatre by foot. I must to confess that we always have parking troubles in the parking space near the movie theatre.

 

Second of all, new movie theatre is a very good place for students who want to earn some money. My husband and I live near a student community, so I think it would be a great news for them. In addition to this practical benefit students will be able to watch all movies free of charge. I suppose it is a great way to save some money.

 

Finally, there are usually many restaurants and entertaining centers around a movie theatre. There people can have dinner or play game machines.

 

In contrast, I think that the building of a new movie theatre will destroy the silence and beauty of out community. Such entertaining centers are often noisy. Moreover, traffic jams will probably be the result of it.

 

In conclusion, I think that if the question was about building a new movie theatre in the next neighborhood I would completely agree.

 

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Teachers should be paid according to how much their students learn. Give specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.

 

I think that I have to disagree with the statement above that teachers should be paid according to how much their students learn. In the following paragraphs I will give my reasons to support my opinion.

 

First of all, all people are different and they have different abilities to learn and understand the given subjects. Some students have to spend many hours studding a subject. At the same time, other students need half an hour to deeply understand the given lecture. Second of all, we all have different goals in attending schools. Some students want to gain more knowledge and experience that will help them in the future to succeed and make a great career. Others are forced to go to a school by their parents, so, basically, they do not care about their grades and studding.

 

I think that lowing or rewarding teachers depending on how much their students have learn is not fair.

However, I believe that evaluation of teachers by their students is make sense. Teachers who get high grades from their students deserve to be rewarded financially or otherwise. Otherwise, teachers who get low grades must be sanctioned. This will forced teachers to constantly improve their knowledge to get higher salary  and simultaneously will improve the learning process. Students will have the opportunity to have the best teachers and get more interesting and comprehensive lectures.

 

To sum up, I think that teachers should be paid according to the quantity of hours given and the grades received from the students. From my everyday experience and observation the quality of the lectures given by the teacher often does not reflect how much a student learn or wants to learn.

 

 

Schools should ask students to evaluate their teachers. Do you agree or disagree? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

 

I think the idea about evaluation teachers by their students is very good. This kind of evaluation can bring many benefits to teachers, students as well as to school. In the following paragraphs O will give my reasons to support my answer.

 

First of all, teachers have the opportunity to find out from this kind of test how good  and clearly their students understand the lectures. It will help them to improve and perfect their knowledge and experience. Also, teachers who get high grades must be rewarded financially or otherwise. On the other hand, the teachers who receive low grades must be sanctioned, for example by lowing their salary. So, this can help to uplift the level of professionalism among the teachers.

 

Second of all, students will more often attend lectures because they will be asked to evaluate their teachers. Students will have the opportunity to choose the best teachers because if a teacher gets a low grade he or she may be fired and replaced with the better one.

 

Finally, the quality of education will increase dramatically. Students will be getting more interesting and professional lectures. Also, they will constantly attend classes in order to listen to an amazing lecture and make an evaluation of the current teacher. In addition to those practical benefits, a school will be better funded by it is sponsors and appreciated in the community. This, in its turn, will attract more students because it will be an honor to study in such a school.

 

To sup up, I think that evaluation of teachers by their students will bring many benefits and allow students as well as teachers to gain more knowledge and experience.

 

 

A company is going to give some money either to support the arts or to protect the environment. Which do you think the company should choose? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

 

Man, through the ages, has undergone many changes from the time when he depicted a herd of mammoths on the walls of the cave to nowadays when the arts are more complicated. Our attitude towards the environment is changed too. A few centuries ago people did not care about pollution, erosion, animal extinction, etc. However, nowadays people again and again talk about this and try to make a difference. I think that money donation for environment protection must take priority over the support of the arts. Bellow I will give my reasons to support my answer.

 

The invention of the automobile is undoubtedly one of the humankind's greatest inventions. However, the automobile brought us many disadvantages as well. The air nowadays is polluted by millions of cars every day. Every day clouds of exhaust are rising from the ground contaminating all around. So, I think that money from a company can be used to make our air fresher and cleaner.

 

Another important aspect of this is the contamination of water. Water is an essential recourse of all living creatures. Nothing will survive without it. Unfortunately, we spend fresh water sometimes very carelessly. Also, many factories wash away their used resources in the nearest river poisoning everything alive there. I think that money donations would be helpful for cleaning our water resources from oil, garbage and chemical matters.

 

Finally, I think that now humankind faced the problem of overpopulation. The population is dramatically rising. We need more food, shelters, clothes, construction materials and space. So, many animals are extinguishing. So, I believe that this money could be spent on conducting a campaign against overpopulation.

 

 

To sum up,  I think that in order to make our children happy we should be more careful with the resources that we take from the nature and  if it is possible restore them.

 

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? All students should be required to study art and music in secondary school. Use specific reasons to support your answer.

 

The issue about whether all students should be required to study art and music in secondary school is the one that is open for debate. Some people believe that students should take these classes. However, others think that it must be up to a student. In this essay I will analyze both these positions and present my opinion in favor of the people who think that studying art and music should not be required in secondary school.

 

From the one side, studying art and music brings many benefits to the students. First of all, it extends their range of interests. Second of all, studying art and music helps to reveal hidden talents and possibilities. In addition to these benefits, it helps a growing child develop his or her perception of the real world.

 

However, from the other side, studying art and music also has some negative aspects. Personally, I think that a person who is interested in mathematics should not spend his or her precious time taking classes in art or music. For example, when I was a student a couple years ago I did not like to attend some of the art classes because it was too boring for me. I wasted my time and money because I was required to pay for these classes and attend them. So, my point is that students should have the right to make a decision for themselves whether they should take classes in art and music or they should not. For instance, there were a couple of optional classes in music  in my university. Many students took those classes and every one was satisfied.

 

To sum up, I think that studying art and music is very essential for a person. However, I think that classes in art and music must be optional, because if a student is dreaming about a career of dentist and spends all his spare time reading about the new technologies and inventions in this field I think it is not fair to make him attend classes when he does not want to. It is like making a person sing when he is good at swimming.

 

 

Students at universities often have a choice of places to live. They may choose to live in university dormitories, or they may choose to live in apartments in the community. Compare the advantages of living in university housing with the advantages of living in an apartment in the community. Where would you prefer to live? Give reasons for your preference.

 

 Some students prefer to live in university dormitories. However, other students choose to live in apartments in the community. I think both of these options have advantages. Bellow I will give my reasons to support my answer.

 

From the one side, living in a dormitory have many benefits. First of all, for a foreign student it is a good chance to improve his or her communication skills and find new friends. Second of all, a dormitory has many useful facilities such as libraries, a canteen, Internet access, etc. In addition to these practical benefits living in a dormitory is often cheaper. So, it helps students save some money what is important at the beginning of their independent life. Finally, living in a dormitory gives students the opportunity to ask for help each other if something was not clear on the lecture presented in a class. This, in it's turn, lead to higher grades. Also, students have many common subject and interests to discuss with each other. So, basically, living in a dormitory helps students to become more sociable and good team-players and gain new knowledge and experience by use of labraries and group discussion.

 

From the other side, living in apartments in the community also have a few benefits. Students can have more privacy and, also, they can choose a community according to its convenience and location. It is sometimes may be an essential because of a person's job.

 

In conclusion, I think that living in a dormitory brings students more benefits then it does living in a community. Students learn to get along with each other, be ready to help and make friends.

    

 

 

In some countries, teenagers have jobs while they are still students. Do you think this is a good idea? Support your opinion by using specific reasons and details.

 

Some people think that teenagers need to work while they are students. However, Other people believe that young people should not combine their education with a job. These two options are controversial ones. In my opinion, they both have disadvantages and advantages. I base my opinion on the following points.

 

From one side, a working student has many benefits. First of all, a person learns how to arrange time to be able to combine his studding and earning money. Personally, I think it is a very important benefit a person can get from this. Second of all, a student learns how to save money and keep his budget. A person gains new experience and knowledge working with the new people. He feels more independently and spends his or her money more careful.

 

From the other side, a person can have not enough time to meet his or her course requirements. Sometimes it may result in a failure on an exam and a waste of money and time. From my everyday experience and observation some people require more time to study new materials and prepare for an exam. Others, at the same, can easy understand new materials. So, my point is that a person should decide for himself whether he will be able to combine his studding and his working.

 

Another important aspect of getting a job is that a student most likely will have no time for parties, movies and his friends. I think that he or she should understand this fact.

 

To summarize, I believe that a working experience will give a student more benefits in the future than it takes from him or her in the present.

 

Some say that music, art and drama are as important as other school subjects, especially at the primary level. Do you agree or disagree?

Some people believe that arts-related subjects are as important as other school subjects, especially for primary school children. I totally agree with this statement because this can help children to discover their talents from an early age and can increase their confidence. 

One of the reasons I agree that creative subjects have the same importance as other school courses in primary school is that it allows students to find out their potential talents early on. That is to say, school-age is the most convenient time for students to learn more about their interests by trying different activities as they are young enough to pursue their hobbies. They will probably not have any other chance later in their lives to discover that because they will be busy with difficult exams when they get older. For example, most famous singers were discovered by their music teachers at school from a young age, and they claimed that they could not be that successful if their teachers did not find out their talents when they were young.

Moreover, music, art and drama subjects help students to boost their confidence. That is because creative lessons teach students how to perform in front of lots of people and give them a chance to socialise with other students. As a result, students can realise their real potential and act more confidently. For instance, many psychologists suggest to students who are struggling with social anxiety to take drama lessons as it helps to enhance confidence. 

In conclusion, this essay completely agrees that music, art and drama have the same value as other subjects in primary school because it allows children to discover their hidden talents early on and increases their self-confidence.

Some people think that parents should teach their children how to be good members of society. Others, however, believe that school is the best place to learn this. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Some people believe that children should be taught by their parents about how to function as useful members of society, while others believe that sending children to educational institutions is the best way for them to study this. Although the latter opinion can be beneficial in some cases, I believe that family upbringing plays a more important role in educating children to be good parts of the community.

Schools can be considered suitable places for children to learn to be good citizens. With standardized educational methods, schools can foster children’s cognitive development so that they are able to contribute to society in the future. For example, Trung Vuong school and Vinschool are well known for having nurtured successful alumni such as Professor Ngo Bao, Professor Nguyen Hung who have devoted their talents to the development of the country. However, these people only represent a small fraction of the total number of students attending schools, and thus sending children to schools cannot be the best method of educating them to be good members of society. 

I believe that parents play a more important role in teaching them how to be good citizens. In Vietnam, the average class size is 20 students, which makes it difficult for educators to provide proper schooling for each student. One to one lessons at home, on the other hand, allow children to progress faster. Furthermore, parents form stronger bonds with their offspring and thus, it is easier for them to shape children’s personalities at an early age. For example, by telling stories such as Robin Hood, Cinderella before bedtime, parents can instil a sense of compassion and integrity into them. These children are likely to become good members of society when they grow up.

In conclusion, although sending children to schools can be seen as a way of teaching them how to be good citizens, I believe that domestic upbringing has a bigger impact on determining who they are in the future.

 

Your city has decided to build a statue or monument to honor a famous person in your country. Who would you choose? Use reasons and specific examples to support your choice.

 

I am from Ekaterinburg, Russia. Recently, my city has decided to build a statue to honor a famous doctor Michail Belui. I totally support this idea. In the following paragraphs I will give my reasons to support my answer.

 

First of all, Michail Belui was a great surgeon. He saved many people during his life. During the World War II he was one of the most famous surgeons. After 25 years from his death many people still bring a lot of  flowers to the place where he was buried. I think he was a great man who liked his job and sacrificed everything to it. Michail Belui had many sleepless nights because the stream of wounded soldiers was endless. He did not care about himself, he cared about people and always was ready to help. Also, he was a great father. He had two sons who inherited his talent for surgery and became great doctors.

 

Second of all, Michail Belui was a very kind and attentive person. My grandma remembers him as a strong, tall and charming man who had a very good sense of humor.

 

I am sure that our modern generation has many things to learn from this man. Moreover, I believe that our country needs to remember such great people and be proud of them.

 

To sup up, I think that humankind must know its history and pass down all its knowledge and experience to the next generations. A statue or monument is a a simple and good way to remember and value our history and people who played an essential role in it.

 

 

Some people believe that university students should be required to attend classes. Others believe that going to classes should be optional for students. Which point of view do you agree with? Use specific reasons and details to explain your answer.

 

There are two points of view to this question. Some people believe that students are adults and they have their own responsibilities. So, they should have freedom in arranging their time. Other people think that optional attendance has a corruption effect on the educational system as a whole. Personally, I think that this question is more complicated.

 

First of all, many students have already children. So, they sometimes have to skip a class or two in order to perform their responsibilities. Second of all, many students do not have enough money for their needs and they have to work more than other students. In this case, optional attendance is well-taken.

Another important aspect of this subject that sometimes lectures of a particular teacher may be dry and uninteresting. I believe that it is reasonably to skip those classes and learn all by one's self. It can save time, so a person can spend it on a research or preparation for a coming test.

 

From the other side, I think that some students who does not have any responsibilities may skip classes without any reason. They can have more time to attend clubs and parties. It has a negative affect on their grades. So, it can result in a waste of money and time. Students may take the same classes more than one time to meet the requirements of their program. It is a waste of money for both a government and a family. A government will lose money because they are spent on education and it means they are tax free. At the same time, parents will have to pay for education of their child one more time. Another important aspect of this that students will not learn how to arrange their time in order to have all things done on time.

 

To summarize, I think that students must attend classes. However, some students with children or who have excellent grades and already work in the field of their major should be allowed to skip a particular amount of classes.

 

 

In some countries, people are no longer allowed to smoke in many public places and office buildings. Do you think this is a good rule or a bad rule? Use specific reasons and details to support your position.

 

The question about whether people should be allowed to smoke in public places is the one that is open for debate. All people can be divided on two groups: smokers and not smokers. Smokers agree that they do not benefit the society by smoking, but think that they should have some special places in office buildings or public places where they can smoke. However, others believe that smokers should not be allowed to smoke in any places except their own apartments. Personally, I completely agree with the last opinion. For the following reasons, which I will mention bellow, I think that smokers should not contaminate the air other people breathe.

 

The first reason for this is that smokers not only damage their own health but actually cause damage to the health of others. Scientists say that people who do not smoke, but regulary breathe in the smoke of cigarettes, so-called "passive smokers", poison their health more then smokers themselves. For example, when I was a student I lived with the roommate who was a chain smoker. First I did not know what to do, I smelled that smoke everywhere and I could not breathe freely, but in a few weeks I got used to it. Now I think that I was a real smoker because of the fact that I regularly breathed in so much smoke.

 

Second of all, I think that people should not be allowed to smoke in public places and in office buildings because this rule will force them to quit. Smokers will have to quit smoking or at least will do it less often and this benefits all people smokers as well as not smokers.

 

Finally, smoking in public places contributes to the growth of number of smokers because many people seeing smokers  may feel a desire to take a cigarette and join them. The advertisement of cigarettes is already prohibited by the law and I think it is a good sign because many people become smokers only because they see other people do it.

 

In conclusion, I think that this rule will benefit the society of every country and our world on the whole.

 

 

 

 

Some high schools require all students to wear school uniforms. Other high schools permit students to decide what to wear to school. Which of these two school policies do you think is better? Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.

 

I think that the issue about whether all students must be required to wear school uniform is the one that is open for debate. Some people think that all students must wear the school uniform. However, others think that students should decide what to wear to school themselves. Personally, I believe that students should wear what they like. For several reasons, which I will mention bellow, I think that school uniforms should not be required to wear at high school.

 

First of all, if students do not have school uniforms they can wear what they like to school. Personally, I like to wear cloth that is comfortable. Also, I am a female and I like to wear jeans and shorts, and as far as I know girls must wear skirts as a part of their uniform. I think many female students will agree with me that jeans much more comfortable then skirts.

 

Second of all, I believe that school uniforms must not cause any discomfort. For example, some international students will find unacceptable wearing some of the uniform's parts.

 

I am from Russia. When I was a student of the elementary school I was required to wear the school uniform that included a dark blue skirt and a white or light blue shirt. I did not like it very much, because I did not like the fact that all students were dressed in the same color. We dressed the same way and we were permitted to wear any adornments. Personally, I did not like the fact that girls always had to wear skirts and it was not convenient especially in cold weather.

 

In short, I think that students should wear to school what they want. Otherwise, if a high school requires students to wear school uniforms, I think that uniforms must be comfortable for all students.

 

 

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Boys and girls should attend separate schools. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

 

Whether boys and girls should attend separate schools is a controversial issue. Some people believe that it brings many benefits. However, others believe that it is not good for the future of our children. I agree with those people who think that children should attend the same schools. In the following paragraphs I will give my reasons to support my opinion.

 

First of all, children from the very beginning should learn how to communicate with each other. They need to learn social skills, be supportive and understand each other. Second of all, I believe that now women and men should be treated in the same way. A woman nowadays has the same rights as a man. She also wants to make a good career and succeed. So, it is essential in the modern world to understand that knowledge has nothing to do with a sex. Every one has the same access to the knowledge and experience and it is only up to a person how hard he or she  wants to work to reach his or her goals.

 

Another important aspect of this is that if children attend separate schools they do not have common interests. They do not know what a person of an opposite sex likes, how he or she spends her or his spare time, etc. I think that it is not good for a long run. Some of them will create a family someday and they most likely will not have anything to share. They will not have common interests. They will have different friends and opinions about things. We had such experience a few centuries ago. Women grow up their children and men worked and gathered in the men' clubs in the evenings. I think it is not the way it should be. A family has many beautiful moments to share together.

 

To sup up, I think that children should attend the same schools because it will help them to become  great, attentive and kind persons. Moreover, they will learn how to respect each other's interests.

 

 

Some people think that human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more important than saving land for endangered animals. Do you agree or disagree with this point of view? Why or why not? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

 

As human population is significantly rising every year, people's requirements are increasing too. We need more food, more machines, more place to live. As a result of this people need more land to satisfy their requirements. We cultivate and irrigate more and more land to plant vegetables, build new buildings, airports, roads, etc. I think sometimes we forget that we are not alone on this planet. I have to disagree with those people who think that human needs are more important than saving land for endangered animals. I base my opinion on the following points.

 

First of all, as I already mentioned, we are not alone on this planet. A few centuries ago we were the part of wild nature. I think we need to remember this fact and respect all creatures around us.

 

Second of all, I believe that we all need to think of the problem of overpopulation. The human population is dramatically increasing and we have to do something about it. From my opinion, every family should have no more than two children. It will help to stop the growth of population, decrease human needs for farmland, housing and industry.

 

In conclusion, I think it is a very topical question nowadays. My point is that all people should answer this question and find the solution.