Essay: The economic development brings a better life to people, but only people in developing countries do feel happier

while those in developed one are less. Why is this and state your view The world is becoming richer with people having higher salaries and more comfortable mod-cons. Some people believe that this trend is conducive to peoples growing happiness in both developing and developed regions while others subscribe to the notion that apparently it sounds so, but more pains are now seen in those in the latter areas. I strongly disagree with the latter view for some reasons. Admittedly, the living standards of people, according to studies, are escalating by dint of economic growth. People in developing world are able to afford such facilities from cars, houses to overseas travel, enriching their life experience and providing them with more opportunities, but those in another pole of the world, say, the wealthy nations, are different, feeling less happy. It is believed that as a result of the expansion of outsourcing market, more jobs in haves nations are directly stolen and delivered to those in haves not nations to make use of low-priced labor and redundant natural resources. However, I hold an opposite view on this matter. Taking a closer look into the picture of outsourcing, we can see more advantages for both sides. This trend, after all, is inevitable, showing rising flexibility in the work market where winners are the most efficient and available while losers are less adaptable to the changing world. To further counter, another argument is that facing the threat of being deprived of current jobs, workers in more developed areas are competitively working harder and training them better with advanced jobs while those in the third-world are satisfied to have chance of employment, leading to the latters lower crime-rates and illegal immigration into the western countries for sake of job- finding. That pollution and terrorism are on a climb in the world is believed to present a threat to all people as well. Despite their richest, those in developed nations still feel annoyed for not genuinely enjoying a sustainable globe. Not only do tsunami and other natural disasters which often happen in less developed regions can have far- reaching effects on rich ones, but the existence of a wider network of terrorists actually also puts their lives in jeopardy. A typical example is the case of New Yorks nine eleven event, and until now, pains are noticeably seen in the face of people here, in spite of their pride to reside in one of the most prosperous harbors of the world. Nevertheless, the truth is the since the 1970s onwards, there have been fewer conflicts and wars. Such terrorism actions can hardly cost as many deaths as those massacres in the First and Second World Wars, statistically. Besides, as the health-care of each nation is increasingly addressed, by dint of economic growth and the provision of cutting-edge technology, more lives in both poles are saved and diseases are in-time curbed. Also, the wealthier people are, the more they can invest in education to have better awareness of environmental protection and the more willing they are to use environment-friendly products, again by virtue of innovative technological applications. Psychologically, once the financial matter is less urgent as it used to be, long-term thinking and strategies are adopted by people in both poles of the world. In my view, all above figures really indicate that the world is changing for the better, and the most crucial is that each person, whether living anywhere, should nourish the belief to protect the earth home everyday to live happily ever after.

Essay: Food is transported thousands of miles from the farm to the market. Is it a positive or negative trend? IELTS ESSAY ON 3/12/2011 We all need food to survive. It is thought that with the domination of cutting-edge technology, such as airplane, food is accessible to everywhere while others see it as a danger, rather than a boon. I totally support the mobile trend in food distribution. First of all, opponents of this tendency argue that the spread of food to far-away places is costineffective. Such fees related to gasoline, transportation delivery, staff management and other types of insurance are way beyond the pocket of suppliers. However, economically, it bestows upon both producers and consumers more noticeable benefits. Due to the scarcity of food in some areas, as a result of frozen or extremely scorching weather, crop failures are predictable, leading to a sky-rocketing price. Hence, with the in-time delivery from other zones which are available in this type of needed food, the prices can be curbed and their taste is fully satisfied while businessmen who truly prioritize the demand of customers over others gain a huge amount of profit. Besides, as living standards of human escalates non-stop, their need for varied food, from eastern to western, is more urgent than ever, especially in times of globalization. As there goes a saying variety is the spice of life, food transported from thousands of miles away from its farm is inevitable. The second disadvantage of this trend is believed to trigger the inability to control the quality of food and growing dependence of each nation. The past has shown that Rome, as a consequence of relying on food chain supply of other nations, ever saw its power going into steep decline whereas the task of fardistance distribution can hardly ensure the thorough examination between suppliers and buyers, and trigger unwanted virus damaging the food. Nevertheless, gone are the days that food was easily ruined by external factors when refrigerators and other types of modern innovations are employed to keep food fresh and pasteurize it effectively. Another point is that Rome might have seen a quick economic recovery if successfully developing other industries to compensate for their lack of food supply. Geographically, each nation is born to be in a location which could be either suitable or hostile to food production, but by focusing on their inherent strengths and exchanging their products, food supply and other types of products are readily accessible to both, and at the same time, this is conducive to heightening the specialization in their production and maximizing their output in general. Moreover, with this trend growing ever-prevalent, procedures of supervising food set up by food experts are internationalized. Entering the market of Wal-mart in America, customers are able to choose the lowest price dishes from all walks of life, even Vietnam, the other side of the world, while still feeling satisfied with their quality by dint of clear markings of out-of-date and usage attached to each item. Equally important, this tendency is a contributor to pressuring local food companies to continuously enhance their quality; otherwise, customers will turn to other markets for better ones with less cost. All things considered, I strongly hold onto the view that more gains than pains are realized in this scenario for its cost-effective, motivational, win-win benefits for customers, producers and governments.

Essay: The Impact of Advertising

The advertising business has become such an important factor in the economy in many countries, especially in the United States, that it also changes the economy itself, society, culture, and the political system. The stimulation for the demand of products and services helps the economy grow stronger and stronger. New inventions become known much faster and can establish their spot in the sales figures of the economy. If there are more people buying these products the overall costs will drop and the product will become cheaper for the customer which raises his willingness to buy even more. On the other hand advertisements are very expensive and some economists believe that these costs are put on top of the actual price paid by the customer. Critics argue that advertising can also have a huge influence on society. It tells the consumers that only purchasing products makes you happy and therefore people compare each other on their belongings. Women also compare themselves with the beautiful and very skinny models they see on commercials and ads. This sometimes results in eating disorders and a low self-esteem of women who dont look like these models. Another bad effect is, that minority groups, especially in the United States are portrait in a subordinate position, which settles in the minds of people. Commercials are also an important part of the income of a TV station which leads to the suspicion that a news channel might not report on an incident about a company they depend on. A lot of TV shows are also based on these commercials, and if the ratings arent good enough the show will be stopped. Only those shows which attract a lot of viewers will be shown, which is not very differentiated and put minorities like older people at a disadvantage. Advertising can also have an impact in politics. $ 467 million were spent on advertisements and TV commercials in the elections of 1998. It gives the opponents the chance to respond to charges very quickly reaching a few million viewers. But since this is very expensive only very rich people have to chance to run for a political position or at least depend on the donation of wealthier people who could have a huge impact on democracy this way. The political issues talked about in an election are also very much simplified because the spots are only about 30 seconds long, and you cant really discuss a lot in such a short period of time. There is finally the impact advertising can have on the culture of a country. The globalized economy uses the same commercials in a lot of different countries, which leads to a break down in the differences of these societies. Children will grow up not knowing how their culture has been before in their country. It can also lead to a lot of discussion about moral values if we just think about the very controversial ads of Benetton we have discussed.

Some people prefer to spend their lives doing the same things and avoiding change. Others, however, think that change is always a good thing. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. Over the last half century the pace of change in the life of human beings has increased beyond our wildest expectations. This has been driven by technological and scientific breakthroughs that are changing the whole way we view the world on an almost daily basis. This means that change is not always a personal option, but an inescapable fact of life, and we need to constantly adapt to keep pace with it. Those people who believe they have achieved some security by doing the same, familiar things are living in denial. Even when people believe they are resisting change themselves, they cannot stop the world around them from changing. Sooner or later they will find that the familiar jobs no longer exist, or that the safe patterns of behaviour are no longer appropriate. However, reaching the conclusion that change is inevitable is not the same as assuming that change is always for the better. Unfortunately, it is not always the case that new things are promoted because they have good impacts for the majority of people. A lot of innovations are made with the aim of making money for a few. This is because it is the rich and powerful people in our society who are able to impose changes (such as in working conditions or property developments) that are in their own interests. In conclusion, I would say that change can be stimulating and energising for individuals when they

pursue it themselves, but that all change, including that which is imposed on people, does not necessarily have good outcomes.

In some countries young people have little leisure time and are under a lot of pressure to work hard in their studies. What do you think are the causes of this? What solutions can you suggest? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. model answer: Some young people find themselves with very little leisure time. I believe there are two main causes of this situation. The first is parental pressure and the second is competition for university places. Every parent wants to see his or her child do well in school and go on to have a successful career. This means that they exert pressure on their children to spend hours each day studying at home. Some even arrange extra tuition for their children. In my own country, it is not uncommon for young people to spend another three hours at small private schools after their usual day at stale school is over. As a consequence, their leisure time is extremely limited and the pressure on them is considerable. The second cause is related to the higher education system. Each year, there are many times more applicants to university than there are university places. The result of this is that only those students with very high grades manage to obtain a place. This contributes to the pressure on teenagers since they must work long hours to have any chance of success. One solution to the problem is for parents to be made aware of the effects of the pressure they put on their children. Schools should inform parents that too much pressure can lead to anxiety, stress and depression. They should be shown ways in which they can help their children lead more balanced lives with a reasonable amount of leisure time. Another effective measure would be for the government to invest in the creation of more university places. This could be done by expanding existing universities or by building new ones. This would have the effect of easing competition for places giving teenagers some of their precious free lime back.

Scientists and the news media are presenting ever more evidence of climate change. Governments cannot be expected to solve this problem. It is the responsibility of individuals to change their lifestyle to prevent further damage. What are your views? Recently scientists worried about climate change have urged governments to introduce measures to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are seen as its main cause. Simultaneously, politicians and environmentalists have urged individuals to make changes to their lifestyle. I shall argue that governments and individuals should take join responsibility for this problem. Firstly, industry accounts for a large proportion of the greenhouse gas emissions, and this can only be controlled by government action. Measures could be taken to discourage pollution, such as limiting or taxing the use of fossil fuels. Alternatively, subsidies could be offered to industries to clean up their production processes. If these ideas were adopted, I believe that businesses would regard pollution as a financial issue. Secondly, only discussion between governments can ensure that solutions are successful. The Kyoto agreement, for example, tried to reach global agreement on how to address the problem. Without such co-operating, it seems to me that efforts to reduce fuel consumption are unlikely to be effective. However, national and international policies will only succeed if individuals also change their lifestyle. For example, people could think more carefully about how they use energy in their homes. By using less electricity, installing energy-efficient light bulbs and electrical appliances, or investing in solar panels, individuals can make a real difference. In addition, I think individual attitudes to transport need to change. Instead of making short tips by car, people could choose to walk, cycle, or take a bus. Since cars are a major source of the problem, changing our behaviour in this area would have a major impact. In conclusion, I would maintain that only a combination of international agreement, national policies, and changes in individual behaviour will succeed in preventing further damage to the environment

Some people say that advertising encourages us to buy things that we really do not need. Others say that advertisements tell us about new products that may improve our lives. Which viewpoint do you agree with? The purpose of advertising is to tell the consumer about any new product or service or any new promotion on the existing product and service. We need it so we can make good decisions when we go shopping. Advertising tells us when new and improved products become available and lets us know which ones have the best price. Through advertising we learn about new products. For example, many grocery stores now sell prepackaged lunches. These are very convenient for busy parents. They can give these lunches to their children to take to school. Busy parents dont have time to look at every item on the store shelf, so without advertising they might not know about such a convenient new product. Even products we are familiar with may be improved, and advertising lets us know about this. Most people use cell phones, but new types of cell phone service become available all the time. There are different plans that give you more hours to talk on the phone, you can send text messages and photos, and next week probably some even newer type of service will be available. By watching advertisements on TV it is easy to find out about new improvements to all kinds of products. Advertisements keep us informed about prices. Prices change all the time, but everyone can look at the ads in the newspaper and see what the latest prices are. Advertisements also inform us about sales. In fact, some people buy the newspaper only in order to check the prices and plan their weekly shopping. Advertisements improve our lives by keeping us informed about the latest products developments and the best prices. Advertisements serve a useful purpose.

Successful sports professionals can earn a great deal more money than people in other important professions. Some people think this is fully justified while others think it is unfair. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion model answer: As a result of constant media attention, sports professionals in my country have become stars and celebrities, and those at the top are paid huge salaries. Just like movie stars, they live extravagant lifestyles with huge houses and cars. Many people find their rewards unfair, especially when comparing these super salaries with those of top surgeons or research scientists, or even leading politicians who have the responsibility of governing the country. However, sports salaries are not determined by considering the contribution to society a person makes, or the level of responsibility he or she holds. Instead, they reflect the public popularity of sport in general and the level of public support that successful stars can generate. So the notion of fairness is not the issue. Those who feel that sports stars salaries are justified might argue that the number of professionals with real talent are very few, and the money is a recognition of the skills and dedication a person needs to be successful. Competition is constant and a player is tested every time they perform in their relatively short career. The pressure from the media is intense and there is little privacy out of the spotlight. So all of these factors may justify the huge earnings. Personally, I think that the amount of money such sports stars make is more justified than the huge earnings of movie stars, but at the same time, it indicates that our society places more value on sport than on more essential professions and achievements.