今天小编为大家带来的是关于2018年1月6日
1. Do you agree or disagree with the statement: Governments have done enough to educate the people the importance of a balanced lifestyle and healthy eating?
A balanced lifestyle and healthy eating are essential things for a government to develop and advance that they are so deeply relevant for a great nation to be. In my country, I think my government is not doing enough to educate its citizens to keep a balanced lifestyle and to eat healthily.
Firstly, the government emphasizes more on the development of economy than a sound lifestyle. To be more concise, it always makes attempts to boost the growth of economy trying to prove that my country is a great one and people living on this land are happy and content. However, economy progression is not a sound indicator to this regard due to the fact that people are expected to work harder and to sacrifice their spare time in order to fulfill the anticipation of the company and the government. A balanced life means people do not just work for their careers or jobs, but also for their pleasures, for their hobbies and for their family. In the society, conversely, people are educated to use all their time to work diligently at the expense of anything in their life. A so unbalanced lifestyle it is that people are under pressure, such as construction workers needing to finish building projects as fast as possible so that they can earn more money; students trying to ace the test so that they can earn more time for their tests by sacrificing the time of exercising and spending time with their friends and family. Hardly do they take a rest to lead a balanced life because they are not educated to do so for a better living.
Secondly, the government tends to ignore the fast development of unhealthy chain store. The food industry has a tremendous influence on the issue of healthy eating. However, it is so powerful that this great empire spends millions of dollars on advertisement, medium, movies or even on schools, for they are sponsors of certain school activities. So, most of the people are not educated well enough to be on a diet that is beneficial and wholesome to their physical condition. What they are “educated” instead is to eat in a fancy place and get their meals as fast as possible as in chain fast-food restaurants. As we all know that fruits, vegetables and water are essential elements for a healthy eating habit, yet the government seldom educates us to consume those things in our daily life; instead, unhealthy chain stores are taking the hand of the government in educating us what seems right to eat due to the ignorance of the rampant development of ill-nourished food industry.
Admittedly, some people may still think our government has done its role of educating citizens to eat healthy and keep a balanced life. For instance, in the school, students are taught what nutrients are vital for our physical condition and some of the governmental organizations, taking Healthy and Sanitary Department for example. It is holding some activities to teach citizens what to eat to keep in a good shape and to live healthily. However, to me, this is not enough. Greasy food and sugary beverages are still sold in the school due to its high profits. Salty food, high carbohydrate diets and fried products are not a rare sight when people go to supermarkets or when they turn on the TV or read the magazines.
In conclusion, even though my government is trying its best to educate people to eat right in some fields, this is not sufficient and not effectual. The government is still trying to focus more on the development of economy and people are still bombarded with the advertisements of the food industry, so people eat by the “trend,” rather than by the “nutrition facts” from food. Hence, I think my government is not educating their people enough concerning a balanced life and a healthy eating concept.
2. Nowadays celebrities are more famous for their glamour and wealth than for their achievements, and this sets a bad example to young people.
It is true that some celebrities are known for their glamorous lifestyles rather than for the work they do. While I agree that these celebrities set a bad example for children, I believe that other famous people act as positive role models.
On the one hand, many people do achieve fame without really working for it. They may have inherited money from parents, married a famous or wealthy person, or they may have appeared in gossip magazines or on a reality TV program. A good example would be Paris Hilton, who is rich and famous for the wrong reasons. She spends her time attending parties and nightclubs, and her behavior promotes the idea that appearance, glamour and media profile are more import than hard work and good character. The message to young people is that success can be achieved easily, and that school work is not necessary.
On the other hand, there are at least as many celebrities whose accomplishments make them excellent role models for young people. Actors, musicians and sports stars become famous idols because they have worked hard and applied themselves to develop real skills and abilities. They demonstrate great effort, determination and ambition, which is required for someone who wants to be truly successful in their chosen field. An example is the actor and martial artist Jackie Chan, who has become world famous through years of practice and hard work. This kind of self-made celebrity can inspire children to develop their talents through application and perseverance.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the influence of celebrities on young people can be positive as well as negative.
3. Some people think that instead of preventing climate change, we need to find a way to live with it. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Climate change represents a major threat to life on Earth, but some people argue that we need to accept it rather than try to stop it. I completely disagree with this opinion, because I believe that we still have time to tackle this issue and reduce the human impact on the Earth’s climate.
There are various measures that governments and individuals could take to prevent, or at least mitigate, climate change. Governments could introduce laws to limit the carbon dioxide emissions that lead to global warming. They could impose “green taxes” on drivers, airline companies and other polluters, and they could invest in renewable energy production from solar, wind or water power. As individual, we should also try to limit our contribution to climate change, by being more energy efficient, by flying less, and by using bicycles and public transport. Furthermore, the public can affect the actions of governments by voting for politicians who propose to tackle climate change, rather than for those who would prefer to ignore it.
If instead of taking the above measures we simply try to live with climate change, I believe that the consequences will be disastrous. To give just one example, I am not optimistic that we would be able to cope with even a small rise in sea levels. Millions of people would be displaced by flooding, particularly in countries that do not have the means to safeguard low-lying areas. These people would lose their homes and their jobs, and they would be forced to migrate to nearby cities or perhaps to other countries. The potential for human suffering would be huge, and it is likely that we would see outbreaks of disease and famine, as well as increased homelessness and poverty.
In conclusion, it is clear to me that we must address the problem of climate change, and I disagree with those who argue that we can find ways to live with it.
4. Nowadays the way many people interact with each other has changed because of technology. In what ways has technology affected the types of relationships that people have? Has this been a positive or negative development?
It is true that new technologies have had an influence on communication between people. Technology has affected relationships in various ways, and there are both positive and negative effects.
Technology has had an impact on relationships in business, education and social life. Firstly, telephones and the Internet allow business people in different countries to interact without ever meeting each other. Secondly, services like Skype create new possibilities for relationships between students and teachers. For example, a student can now take video lessons with a teacher in a different city or country. Finally, many people use social networks, like Facebook, to make new friends and find people who share common interests, and they interact through their computers rather than face to face.
On the one hand these developments can be extremely positive. Cooperation between people in different countries was much more difficult when communication was limited to written letters or telegrams. Nowadays, interactions by email, phone or video are almost as good as face-to-face meetings, and many of us benefit from these interactions, either in work or in social contexts. On the other hand, the availability of new communication technologies can also have the result of isolating people and discouraging real interaction. For example, many young people choose to make friends online rather than mixing with their peers in the real world, and these 'virtual' relationships are a poor substitute for real friendships.
In conclusion, technology has certainly revolution communication between people, but not all of the outcomes of this revolution have been positive.
5. Some people like to record their life by sharing pictures and other information on social networking sites. Others keep this information to themselves and never share it online. Which do you prefer?
The world is getting increasingly smaller with the advancement in telecommunication technology: facebook, twitter, blog, wechat and linkedin have linked people in virtually every corner of the world and brought them closely. They may see, hear, read or talk about the same thing at the same time, or, when they do not have the same thing to focus their attention on, they share what they see, hear, read or do individually. There are, clearly, upsides in this modern practice and mentality of sharing, but to me, there are too many downsides for it to be worth trying.
Among other things, it is a source of stress or burden for our friends when we post pictures or other information (about travelling, dining out, any particular service, etc.). They may feel obliged to give their comment to either avoid looking rudely or to signal their concerns about or interest in you. Sharing relevant information might help us to gain easier access to what we need or to provide a window into a different culture, but it could also be confusing, distracting or even misleading as well. We do not have to look far to see the point – a glance at the numerous traveling tips or blogs, with contradictory direction instructions and a variety of sentimentality, would be more than enough to give us a severe headache.
What’s worse, to post our personal information on a public domain or some social networking site is to expose ourselves or our families and friends to anyone who can get access to the site, hence increasing our chances of becoming the easy targets of cyber crimes. Online crimes such as identity theft, fraud, blackmail and credit card problems are nothing new to us. It is paradoxical that we ask for tougher measures to crack down on online crimes and for a better protection of our privacy while we eagerly expose ourselves, proudly and prominently, to the potential criminals by posting our photos or information on where we go, what we do, or whom we meet, so on and so forth.
Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, often challenges himself with the question put forward by Dr. Martin Luther King: the most persistent and urgent question in life is – “What are you doing for others?” When we are excited beyond ourselves about what is happening to and around us, anxious to record our life for us or for who knows who, we might as well ask ourselves the same question.
6. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: the car (automobile) has had greater effect on the society than the airplane has?
Opinions vary as to whether car or airplane has exerted a greater impact on our society. Some people believe that the car exerts greater effect, for without a car many of us cannot go to school and office. Others believe that it is airplane that makes long distance travel available, thus impacting the whole world in unthinkable ways. Although there is some element of truth in both arguments, I believe that the automobile is more useful and necessary than the airplane. Admittedly, the advent of airplane realized the flying dream of human beings, which indeed serves as an inspiration and motivation. In other words, thinking that men can fly in the sky gives people courage and confidence when doing other demanding and difficult things. Besides, Airplane has significantly facilitated international travel and global business, thus accelerating the process of globalization. However, after further consideration, I still believe that the automobile has had more effect on the society because of the following reasons.
First, generally speaking, cars are affordable. We can buy a car for thousands of dollars, but we have to pay millions to get a plane and even an airplane ticket can cost thousands of dollars. Last summer I went to New York with my families and we spent 40000RMB on tickets alone. Even people from developed countries find it difficult to afford airplane tickets, not to mention those poor people from developing countries. So a large number of people actually do not have the flying experience. But the automobile is inexpensive and it is not easy to find a person who has never rode on a bus.
The second point to note is that the use of cars can be more intimately connected with our daily life. Trucks transport vegetables and meat to places where there are not enough food to meet the demand of the local people. What’s more fire engines are indispensable for a city too. School buses and commuter buses are also necessary in order for a modern society to run smoothly. The list goes on and on. In short we can afford to live without airplane, but we cannot imagine what a world would be like where there is devoid of cars. Without planes we can search on the Internet for information, use Skype to meet our friends and families, take ships to travel to another country. But without a car, many people can only stay near our offices and schools, eat local and monotonous food. Life would be dull and difficult.
Considering the above analysis, we can draw the conclusion that although the plane has its own merits and influences, these merits and influences are less than those of cars. Cars are inexpensive and can better meet our everyday demands. A world without planes is a world without luxuries, but a world without cars is a world deprived of necessities.
7. People often buy products not because they really need but because other people have them.
One defining characteristic of people is the degree to which they follow the public to purchase some commodities they don’t actually need. How people spend money is closely related to the quality of their life. Therefore, when it comes to title issue that whether everyone buys products because others have them, their notions vary from one to another. However, from my perspective, as we know nothing in the world is absolute, we have to analyze the issue on a case-by-case basis.
Admittedly, the competing minds can motivate people to purchase something they don't need, especially the young people. Due to the immature psychology of teenagers, they are more likely to be influenced by people around them. It has become a common phenomenon that the female students are keen on pursuing various fashionable clothes while the boys are crazy about the latest electronic products. My brother is a case in point. As a crazy fan of electronic products, my brother always squanders his money on constantly buying the latest gadgets and had collected various cell phones such as iPhone 6. With the iPhone Plus being on the market, some of his classmates managed to buy it. My brother required constantly my parents to purchase one for him.
Therefore, young people have not formed a rational habit of spending money so that they buy the products only out of competing minds. However ，adult people will spend money on products according to their own needs because they have a rational view of spending. According to a survey polling 10 thousand people aged over 40 conducted by the Consumer Service Association, most of their expenses are distributed on daily necessities instead of some luxurious. When asked about the questions like what is the most important factor in choosing a certain product, they give the priority to its practicality and quality. Meanwhile, nearly 90% of the interviewed people have the habit of recording everyday cost and make a plan of allocating money. For example，if they want to buy a washing machine, they will compare the prices in various stores and then determine to purchase it. Therefore, the elder people are more prudent in spending money and thus will buy something based on their own. needs.
In the final analysis, we cannot agree that all people buy products not because they need them but because others have them. From my perspective, it depends on the age of people whether we buy some commodities due to the competing mind. To be specific, the youth are more influenced by others in that they haven’t formed a rational concept of consumption, by contrast, what the elder people buy are more determined by their own needs, for they are mature and rational.
8. Do you agree that telephones are playing a more effective role than television in people’s life?
Some people argue as if it is a general truth that telephone has greater influence on people’s lives than television. But to be frank, I can’t agree with this statement. There are numerous reasons why I hold no confidence on it, and I would only explore only a few primary ones here.
Before my demonstration, I have to admit that both telephone and television are the greatest inventions during human history, the reason is that both of them improve our lives and broader our view. However, what makes them different for us is their functions. Telephone is a method we connect with each other, while television makes us communicate with the whole world. As we compare the whole world with any individual, we can make our conclusion about which changes our lives obvious without any doubt. However, I still want to mention some further explanations.
For one thing, if we compare the outside world to a huge school for us, television must be the best tutor for our learning process. For instance, it shows us documentary of Yellow Stone National Park and Amazon to incentive our interested in geology. At the same time, it helps us to look back to the Revolution War and Civil War. These historic moments make us a real part of our history.
For another, besides being a telescope for the outside would, television is also a microscope for our inside world. It uses a vivid method to show us the humanism, and make us to think about ourselves at the same time. Every day we watch TV for news and plays. The characters of them and the way these persons treat the staffs and affairs around them, making us ask ourselves. Am I just like the miser in the movie? How would I deal with my dishonest friend? And could I be a brave man like the hero I admire? All of these questions can enhance our understanding of humanism and make us better.
Even though telephone makes a small world for us, it can’t compare the whole university television shows to us.
Taking into account of all these reasons, we can reach the conclusion that television plays a more important part in human’s lives than telephone. If we didn’t have the telephone, we lost some of our friends far away. However, if we lose the television, we would be lost in the complicate world.
9. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The food we eat today is much healthier than that in the past.
Food is a basic human necessity. As time has passed, people have raised their expectations that food is not just something that keeps away hunger. I believe that the food we eat at present is not as healthy as it was in the past.
First, the fast pace of life makes our food less healthy than before. Fast food is a good example. In the past, life was relatively easy for people. They did not need to go to all the way to their companies, transferring buses and trains several times on the way. Their daily schedules were not as filled with meetings and business trips as today. They could all go home to enjoy dinners prepared at home by their family members. However, presently, almost everyone has to focus most of their hours on studying or working, while still trying to squeeze in time for dinner. That is where fast food comes in. The sad truth is that knowing about the risk of eating junk food, people still rush into KFC and McDonald’s to grab a bite in order to keep their timetable today.
What is more, the development of modern agriculture has contributed to unhealthy food. Before modern agriculture developed, every farmer just used natural fertilizer and focused on their limited farmland. However, the population explosion inevitably led to a revolution in modern agriculture technology, which greatly increased crops yields, and meanwhile, generated many food security risks. For instance, widespread usage of chemical pesticide and fertilizer to protected crops from harmful insects and increased production, but the residue of these chemicals directly caused many diseases, such as food poisoning, cancer, malformation and mutation.
Finally, but most importantly, overeating fatty foods has also affected our health adversely. The increase in material wealth of the entire population has created an environment of gluttony and overindulgence in food. For instance, meat, egg and milk now make up a larger proportion of people’s diet than before, increasing the average person’s intake of calories, oil and salt. In many hospitals, rich man’s diseases, like overweight, high blood pressure and diabetes are now commonly seen. This phenomenon, though people are aware of the problem, will continue to last, for we still continue to eat unhealthy food every day.
In conclusion, our diets are less healthy than before. The faster pace of life, the development of modern agriculture and the overeating of unhealthy food has contributed to this situation.
10. A high school has decided that all students must take a class in which they learn a practical skill. School administrators are trying to decide whether to hold a class in cooking, managing personal finances or auto repair. Which do you think the school should require students to take? Why?
In my home country, the curricula in high schools are extremely intense for students. Many high school students are under great pressure at school, and they might feel stressed out if one more required course is added to the busy schedule. However, if they have to choose one course to take, I believe that a cooking class is better than a personal financial management class or auto repair class, because a cooking class could benefit students in different ways.
To begin with, a cooking class could provide students with opportunities to relax and escape from intense academic study for a while. In a cooking class, students neither need to read lots of materials nor to solve complicated mathematic problems. What they need to do is to follow the chef’s instructions and learn how to serve delicious dishes. Moreover, students could cooperate and communicate with each other during the process of cooking. By working cooperatively with their peers, students could learn more about their classmates and thus become friends with each other, which is almost impossible in classrooms where students are forbidden to discuss in my home country. Thus, a cooking class could help students relax in a pleasant atmosphere.
Another advantage of cooking class is that the skill of cooking could benefit students in a long run. In the future, some high students might choose to enter colleges or universities in their home country, whereas others will choose to study abroad. It is possible that many of them will relocate to a new city and live in apartments with roommates. If those students have learned how to cook during high school, they could cook by themselves, and treat their friends with delicious dishes when they have time. In this way, the students could save a lot of money because they do not have to eat outside in restaurants that are usually more expensive than cooking at home. Moreover, the students’ friends would appreciate a lot being invited to their places and served with mouthwatering dishes. Hence, a cooking class could benefit students even after their graduation.
Compared with a cooking class, a personal financial management course would be too boring because students still need to sit in classrooms and complete difficult tasks. As for an auto-repair course, students might find it dangerous because they need to use tools that they are not familiar with to repair cars. Furthermore, in order to open an auto-repair course, high schools need to spend a lot of money purchasing vehicles and equipment. I am afraid that the administration offices in high schools are not fond of this idea.
Based on the above discussion, a cooking class could benefit students in that they could relieve the pressure from academic learning, and could utilize the skill of cooking in the future.
11. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is difficult to be teachers who are not only popular with students but also can improve their studying efficiency. Use specific reasons and examples or details to support your answer.
At present, a teacher is required not only to know how to teach, but also to be favorable for his students. Although some people believe educators may have difficulties in achieving this, I personally believe that these two are not mutually exclusive.
In the first place, a teacher who has gained popularity among students must have a personal quality such as being patient to tolerate the students who have made some mistakes, showing enthusiasm in class, being humorous. The most important l is to love students and to love the course of teaching. As long as he has the innate love for his profession, he may have enormous zest for his students, and become a teacher favored by students. In addition, teachers like this can easily motivate students’ learning interest, thereby promoting working efficiency. That is to say, they are so trustworthy that they can guide and supervise the learners’ study efficiently.
Secondly, only a teacher who have the teaching faculty can help students develop effective and efficient study skill. In order to have this capability, a teacher should acquire enough knowledge. On the one hand, he should acquire the wide knowledge of philosophy, psychology, education (how to teach), culture, history, geography, etc. On the other hand, he must master much deeper theories in his research field. For example, an English teacher should possess the necessary skills of listening, speaking, reading, writing and translating, among which speaking is of paramount importance. In addition, a good English teacher may have the means to activate his class and give students the opportunities to practice English. Only in this way can students use English and improve their communicative competence. Undoubtedly, these teachers who have succeeded in improving academic performance are favorable for students.
To sum up, based on the reasons I list above, I would regard teachers would achieve the required goals since the former is the foundation of the latter and without the latter, the former cannot be permanent.
12. Some people think that all university students should study whatever they like. Others believe that they should only be allowed to study subjects that will be useful in the future, such as those related to science and technology.
People have different views about how many choices students should have with regard to what they can study at university. While some argue that it would be better for students to be forced into certain key subject areas, I believe that everyone should be able to study the course of their choice.
There are various reasons why people believe that universities should only offer subjects that will be useful in the future. They may assert that university courses like medicine, engineering and information technology are more likely to be beneficial than certain art degrees. From a personal perspective, it can be argued that these courses provide more job opportunities, career progressions, better salaries, and therefore an improved quality of life for students who take them. On the societal level, by forcing people to choose specific university subjects, governments can ensure that any knowledge and skill gaps in the economy are covered. Finally, a focus on technology in higher education could lead to new inventions, economic growth, and greater future prosperity.
Although these arguments, I believe that university students should be free to choose their preferred areas of study. In my opinion, society will benefit more if our students are passionate about what they are learning. Besides, nobody can really predict which areas of knowledge will be most useful to society in the future, and it may be that employers begin to value creative thinking skills above practical or technical skills. If this were the case, perhaps we would need more students of art, history and philosophy than of science or technology.
In conclusion, although in might seem sensible for universities to focus only on the most useful subjects, I personally prefer the current system in which people have the right to study whatever they like.
13. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Children are benefited in important ways by taking care of pet?
Nowadays, more and more families are keeping pets and treating them as family members. It is not difficult to imagine how much happiness our puppies and kittens have been sharing with us. In fact, the happiness is not the only treasure that pets brought to people, especially for those who have children. This is because children could learn and benefit a lot from keeping a pet in various important ways.
First, by taking care of a pet, children will learn the difficulties that their parents have been through while bringing them up. In order to keep their pets healthy and happy, children need to food and drink them on time, to shower them regularly, to spend time playing with them every day, and to look after them when they are sick. It seems that, to a certain extent, those responsibilities are similar to those parents’ when taking care of their own children. Because of those similarities, children could have opportunities to “perform” parenting roles and thus learn how hard it is to be their pets’ “parents”. Once children are aware of the difficulties of being a father or mother, they will become grateful for everything that their parents have done for them, and love their families more than ever.
Second, children will not feel lonely if they keep pets. In today’s families, especially families in big cities, more and more parents choose to have only one child. It is very likely that a child feels lonely if his or her parents are busy with their work. Admittedly, children from different families could get together and play with each other when parents are not at home. However, very few parents would allow their children to do so, because they are reluctant to take the risk that some troublemakers among those kids will accidentally hurt their children. In this case, keeping a pet, such as a loyal puppy or a cute kitten, seems to be a better choice. I remember that when I was little, I had a kitten named Orange. Though Orange seemed to be indifferent to everything happening in this world, he would always love to stick to me when my parents went to work. We spent a lot of time together, reading books, watching cartoons, and drawing pictures. With Orange, I never felt lonely.
Therefore, I think, it is not an exaggeration to say that keeping a pet could benefit kids in important ways, such as teaching children how difficult it is to be “parents”. Moreover, children will not feel lonely with their pets around, sharing each sweet moment together.
14. The best way to reduce air pollution is for the government to raise the cost of fuel (petrol).
The world we are living in has seen drastic changes during the past decades, thanks to the fast development of science and technology. Even though such rapid development brought massive positive effects, those drawbacks, one way or another, should not be ignored by society. Increasing pollution, which is challenge my every major city in the world, is one of the most perturbing issues. To combat such problems government encourages companies to make up gas price in an effort to decrease car use and cut down waste gas. However, it may temporarily alleviate the problem, but is doubtfully the optimal solution.
First of all, consumers and economy would be victimized by such measures. The number of cars in a country directly depends on the proportion of the population affluent enough to own cars. As a result, raises m gas price could invoke hard feelings among this segment of people but would not drastically change their behavior in using cars. Even if the number of cars on road is reduced due to higher gas cost, this is not the best way to solve traffic problems. Such policy would hurt the auto industry, place higher costs on current and prospect car owners, and undermine the economy of a nation. In the long run, the final way out could be the construction of better roads and more effective use of available transport facilities.
Secondly, there is evidence that waste gas from cars is not the leading cause of air pollution. The culprit may be the discharge of polluting substances into the atmosphere due to the rapidly growing manufacturing industry. As a result, reduction of the number of cars would not return us a blue sky and fresh air. We could better handle this problem if we could increase control over industrial waste discharge and adopt more environmental friendly materials and production equipment.
Finally, other measures like the application of cheaper and cleaner energy resources could also be a better solution. For example, we now have the ability to make cell-powered or even solar-powered cars. Such energy is completely clean and plentiful. But we still have a very long way to go to turn such technologically possible into affordable and practical products.
To conclude, it is not the best way to control traffic and pollution by increasing gas price because such action will hurt consumers and economy Without achieving what it is aimed for. Measures such as construction of better transport facilities and development of new energy resources could be more effective solutions.
15. Workers would be much happier if they are doing different types of tasks during their workday than doing the same task.
The world we are living in has seen drastic changes during the past decades, thanks to the fast development of science and technology. In such context of technological development, more employment opportunities have been created. While, in the meantime, many problems have arisen, a perturbing one of which is the discussion about whether people should simultaneously pursue various jobs. Some people who favor it significance maintain that various jobs are favorable for people to improving their career prospect. Nevertheless, some others with a converse opinion insist that focusing on single work can is more sensible choice. Personally, I am in favor of the later viewpoint.
In some senses, a life-time career has its merits. First, if you stick at taking a post, all angles of the job will have appeared, after some time, you will definitely have a good command of it. You may become a veteran of the field and earn respect or prestige from others. Second, you can establish an extensive social connection relating to the field, helping you tear down most of the barriers standing in the way of your working endeavor. Finally, mistakes of the routine tasks would be minimized because you have learned the lessons.
However, as the modern society develops, experiencing different jobs has its advantages. Initially, we 100k at the issue of bribery. Many high-level staffs are inclined to accept bribes via power in hand. However, if he knows that someone else will soon take his place, such acts can be avoided. We then 100k at work motivation. If one works for the same company for a long time without promotion, he may get sick and tired of doing the same daily routine. Nonetheless, a manager should have qualities of a sense of teamwork and the capability of coordination. Therefore, to try various positions can help you gain ground to be promoted.
In summary, staying in the same post can cultivate one to cut out for the job but involve one in a boring career while changing jobs frequently can be both advantageous by keeping bribery away and providing one with more opportunities of promotion and disadvantageous by making mistakes occasionally. In my opinion, people should seek a decent and good-paid job and pay little attention to changing it.
16. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? A job with more vacation time but a low salary is better than a job with high salary but less vacation time.
To my thinking, the preference would vary from different people when they are asked about which they like better: a job with more vacation time but a 10w salary or a job with high salary but less vacation time. Normally they can be divided into two types.
The first type of people is those who are still young and just start developing their career. At this time, they have little money that barely can support themselves and they are full of energy to work and have the desire to achieve something in their jobs. In this case ， they might be more suitable to do a job with high salary but less vacation time, since they need to spend more time working and earning more money in order to live a decent and comfortable life. It is impossible for them to go on vacation due to the lack of money anyway. By doing jobs with high salary but less vacation time, they can save a large sum of money before they are about to set up families to guarantee the quality of future life. Take my own experience as an example, I chose a teaching job in an education institution, a part of the reason why I made this decision is the high salary. The vacation is very short since there are a 10t of lessons for the teachers to take. But it is not a problem for me and not a problem for most of my colleagues. For we are eager to prove that we are grown up and are able to not only support ourselves but also the people around us.
A job with more vacation time but low salary would be a better choice for those who has to take care of their families. At this time, they may have already gotten married and probably have babies to 100k after, the money they make now are much enough to run their life. They had better choose a job with more vacation time but a salary of 10w in order to put more attention on caring the family. The time spent on accompanying the wife, the child, and the parents can never be enough. It is generally agreed in our country that no matter how much money you have, you cannot afford to the affection between family members.
There are still some other perspectives that I do not think due to the limited time and experience, such as which is better for those people who have a strong ambition to achieve success and those Who are more inclined to a casual life. As the saying goes, there are no absolutes. Hence critical thinking is in great need when we are faced with question like this.
17. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? A leader should have strong opinion and should not change his or her mind.
Never does the topic merely referring to how to be a successful leader fail to arouse attention of public, with the economy. But much disagreement exists among people as to the attitudes toward subordinates that leaders should hold. Some of them claim that leaders should carry on their own ideas without any disturbed by others. Others, however, are on the opposite. As to this issue, my favor goes to the latter that only a leader who is willing to accept others opinion scan be successful and my reasons will be listed as follows.
To begin with, leaders are not supposed to make any decisions alone by the risk of making mistakes. That is to say, there is no exception that every individual in this world is likely to introduce error unintentionally, no matter how intelligent or well-informed he is. Take Steve Jobs as an example, no one can deny how tremendous contributions he made to the whole technological industry. In 1998, however, Jobs ignored other directors’ suggestions and persisted in inventing the Newton portable computer, which was overpriced by customers’ imagination, and it lacks of ample support by suppliers. Due to this wrong decision without authorized by other partners, Apple paid a heavy price to regain the reputation among customers. Thus, a person, especially a leader in a company, he is supposed to treat every decision he made carefully which might have colossal impact on the whole company by listening to others’ perspectives rather than stick to his own opinions toughly.
Plus, the more opinions from other leaders adopt, the better ultimate decisions could be generated. More specifically, when we discuss the same issue with different people, we probably receive distinct feedbacks, enabling us to considering objects from different perspectives and being more comprehensive to consider problems. I would like to cite my best friend Nichole, who was a chairman in student’s Union in her college, as an example. She told me that, the first month after she handled the position as a chairman she almost made every decision by herself in an attempt to ensure everything in the Union is under her control. However, as time went by, she found that every coworker in her union has his own cutting-edge. When she discussed the problems with them, she was exposed to unique perspectives which considerably assisted her to have deeper understandings of the issue and made wiser decisions easily. As an old saying goes, great things may be done by mass effort. It is evident that a successful leader must be a person who is eager to take others’ advice into consideration.
Admittedly, making decisions alone without taking care of others’ opinions has its own undeniable advantages especially in some specific situations. Say, the leader has to make decision in a short time or the decision is too confidential to let others be aware of. Nevertheless, it is merely under these a few specific circumstances that the better way for leaders to decide by themselves completely. And under these circumstances, the decision shared more likely to turn out to be a disaster as a consequence.
To conclude, based on the offered arguments above, we may safely arrive at the conclusion that only a leader being prevented from making all decisions by himself without listening to others’ opinions is able to be a successful leader genuinely, since they are more probably to make wise choice and avoid making inferior decisions to some extent.
18. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The ability to cooperate and work with other people is more important to the ability to lead other people.
Nowadays, because of fierce competition, many people pursue more favorable jobs and pay attention to the fact——how to succeed in a new job. Some people think the ability to adapt oneself to the new environment is of significant importance, while others insist that the profound knowledge of this job is more important. As far as I am concerned, the ability of grasp the job accounts more in the success of the new job.
First of all, the good grasp of the knowledge in a new job is the key to get into a new company. When choosing new employees, the managers will definitely value people who have perfect understanding of job and have practice skills. Therefore, if the knowledge base is worse, the candidates may be washed out in the interview. More importantly, in some fields, the excellent knowledge will bring company more profits. For example, in financial company, the better understanding of math, investment can help employer to do well in making profits for company. As a result, they have more possibilities to be accepted and promoted.
Moreover, the excellent knowledge will consequently lead to remarkable performance in the new environment. The colleagues admire the ability of the person. Once they have problems, they are more likely to communicate with the brilliant employee and discuss the way to solve the problems with him. Therefore, the person with good knowledge will integrate the new environment. On the contrary, if someone's ability does not meet the expectation of the partners and managers, he will lose the attention. So it is difficult for the people to get into the work atmosphere.
Admittedly, the ability to adapt oneself to the new environment is also important, only they accommodate the environment can they do well in their work. In the good condition, people can take advantage of their potentiality to cooperate with other people and finish projects. But If they don't have profound knowledge, they only talk with people but not help them succeed in a new job.
In conclusion, the excellent knowledge of new job is more important than the ability to adapt the new environment.
19. Modern agriculture methods damage the environment, but providing food for the growing population around the world is more important than protecting the environment.
The world we are living in has seen drastic changes during the past decades, thanks to the fast development of science and technology. In the context of such development, the efficiency of agricultural production has substantially improved with the appearance of labor-saving and labor-replacing machines. Nevertheless, the application of these advanced technologies has simultaneously brought many environmental problems. Accordingly, many people confused about whether providing more food to more people thereby solving starvation problems is more essential than protecting the environment. This problem has aroused much debate. Therefore, it is deserved for people to analyze.
First and foremost, food is the basic living requirement for each person. For each individual, avoiding starvation is the foundation of all kinds of social activities. Moreover, providing enough food to citizens thereby solving starvation problems and satisfying their basic living rights is simultaneously the fundamental responsibility of each government. Take some undeveloped countries, especially some African countries, as an example. Population growth causes food demand substantially exceeds provide, therefore, starvation problem is becoming more and more serious in those countries. If this situation persists, it will inevitably affect 10Ca1 harmonious and stability. For the government of these areas, improve the agricultural investment and use some more advanced agricultural equipment can effectively solve starvation problem and then enhance citizens' quality of life. Therefore, in these countries, agricultural development is more important than environmental protection.
While, on the other hand, for most developing countries and developed countries, government should properly reduce the utilization rate of agricultural machines thereby ensure countries sustainable development. If government just focusing on developing agriculture while ignoring environmental protection, human-beings will pay a heavy price for such behaviors as it will cause an amount of more serious environmental problems, such as air pollution, energy crisis, global warming and climate change. In addition, agricultural development can be considered as a current and short-term problem while environmental protection can be considered as a long-term problem. It is selfish that current people just focus on their present profit and requirement while ignoring the negative effects, which will bring to their descendants.
In summary, I would concede that environmental protection is as important as agricultural development for current society. Nevertheless, for those undeveloped countries or areas, government should give priority to developing agriculture thereby solving the starvation problem. On the other hand, for other countries, government should keep a balance between agricultural development and environmental protection. I firmly believe these two issues can be well compatible with each Other as long as people can optionally use those advanced technologies.
20. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is easier for parents to raise children today than it was 50 years ago.
Raising children is definitely one of the most challenging things in the world. From the time babies are born, parents have the responsibility to properly feed and educate them. Considering every aspect of raising children, I firmly believe that it is much easier for parents to take care of children nowadays than 50 years ago.
First, compared with parents 50 years ago, parents nowadays have relatively easy access to information about how to raise a child. 50 years ago, books about raising a child are scarce and computers can only be found in government offices and big companies. However, as technology and book industry develop quickly, we can buy books, magazines and scan websites that provide comprehensive, practical and expert child health and parenting information and activities covering children of different ages. For example, my neighbor just gave birth to a baby and she did not know how to do baby massage. I searched on the internet and found tips about performing baby massage. Some articles even well-illustrated and are equipped with videos, which are more vivid and explicit than words. My neighbor quickly learned how to massage her baby.
Second, children are vulnerable to various diseases. In the past, many diseases were incurable and even mild diseases like the Vitamin deficiency may cause sufferings. However, in the 21st century many diseases die out because of the advances in modern medicine. Besides, the environment nowadays is hygienic, which means that children are less likely to be attacked by infectious diseases.
Last but not least, with the development of economy, parents nowadays are more likely to raise children with both strong body and strong mind. In the past, children can hardly fill their bellies, let alone go to school to receive education. Now, things have changed completely. The living standards are much higher than that of 50 years ago, which means that parents now can not only supply their children with sufficient and nutritious food to eat, but also have abilities to provide them mental food. For example, my grandparents told me that many babies born in the 1960s were starve to death because of food scarcity. Although parents were working very hard, they still could not earn enough money to buy daily necessities.
From the above analysis, I believe that abundant information, coupled with advanced modern medicine and prosperous economy, make it easier for parents nowadays to bring up children.
另外有一则好消息，针对托福备考，