Should college students stay at home? (very short version)

Posted on April 14, 2012 by Mr Writefix

Many university students live with their families while others need to live away from home because their universities are in different cities. What are the advantages and disadvantages in both situations?

Is university just a place to get a piece of paper? Or can it be a place to grow personally and academically? This essay will explain why it’s better for most students to move away from home.

Living at home while studying has many advantages. It’s more comfortable than student accommodation. Rent and laundry are free, and there’s no need to cook. Your favorite DVDs are still in your old room, with the Justin Bieber posters and the Hello Kitty collection from when you were nine. The same old friends live nearby, although fewer because some have gone to college now.

Yes, your new college friends across the city are cold and penniless. But they sit in cafes for hours discussing politics and playing guitar and talking to that cute Korean student. The dorms are noisy, but there are always new people to meet. Some of your new college friends have signed up with a Japanese conversation club; others are going abseiling soon. While you snooze on the long uncomfortable bus ride home, they are working together in the library on next week’s assignment. While you sit with your mother watching television watching, they are exploring clubs and giggling during poetry readings.

Clearly, college is about more than a certificate. It’s about learning – not just academically, but about other people and the way you view the world. It doesn’t mean forgetting your old life, but it does mean opening up to new ideas and new experiences. Give it a try! You can always go home at the weekend!

258 words, 19 sentences, 13.5 words per sentence. This essay has exactly the same ideas and structure as a much longer essay (413 words) here.

Is ambition positive or negative?

Posted on April 14, 2012 by Mr Writefix

Is ambition a positive or negative characteristic? Is is necessary for success?

In many situations, ambition is highly regarded. Job applications often ask for ambitious candidates. Entrepreneurs are admired for their ambition and energy, and dynamic countries and cities have ambitious plans for growth. Although ambition has a dark side, this essay will show that we should not be scared of ambition.

Ambition is often associated with negative characteristics such as greed, intolerance, and the drive for power. In the movie Wall Street, the character Gordon Gecko said that greed was good: there were no limits to how much money you could make or how big a company could get. Ambition is also often associated with ruthlessness. It can block out human feelings such as friendship, respect for others, or compassion. Finally, ambition is regarded as being solitary: the individual wants power at any price, and the reward is often loneliness or isolation.

However, these negative associations should not stop us from being ambitious. First of all, being ambitious means understanding that we have value and that we can become better. Without plans, we plan to fail, but ambition helps us map out paths for success in our personal, family, or professional lives. Ambition also teaches resilience. When problems occur, ambitious people find a way around them. In addition, being ambitious should make us adaptable and tolerant: by including other people in our ambitions we all move forward. Ambition does not have to mean a solitary goal: it can be a vision for a city, the elimination of a disease or the improvement of a community.

In conclusion, ambition is often portrayed negatively, particularly by people who have failed themselves. We should not let these people get us down. Without ambition, our lives become mechanical and meaningless. We need to celebrate ambition and enjoy the better present and future it brings.

299 words, 14.9 words per sentence on average

Who is valued most in society – old or young? (Short version)

Posted on April 9, 2012 by Mr Writefix

In some countries old age is highly valued, while in others youth is emphasized. Which viewpoint do you agree with?

Many people have a simplistic view of attitudes toward age. They suggest that in Western societies old people are not respected, while in Asian societies elders are revered. Similarly, youth is either highly valued or ignored, depending on the culture. In this essay I will show that some of these views are mistaken.

First of all, old age is valued everywhere. It’s true that in the Far East, people respect grandparents, older leaders, and bosses. However, if we look at Western countries, we also find politicians in their sixties or seventies, despite free elections, and company executives in their sixties, despite strong business competition. In addition, as life expectancy increases, older people are becoming more important as consumers and voters. Finally, even in countries where elders previously could not be challenged, people are realizing that old age does not always mean wisdom. The old way of running families, companies, or countries may not work today.

We see many images of young people on our screens, but does this mean they are valued more? In fact, these images are just marketing: parents spend money on children, and older people spend less on mobile phones or beauty products. Just because shampoo ads portray young women does not mean that young women run companies or countries. There are very few young politicians or company bosses anywhere in the world, apart from exceptions like Bill Clinton or Mark Zuckerberg.

The reality is that although society seems obsessed with youth, older people still have power and wealth. They are the ones who make money and decisions. We must be careful not to confuse images with reality.

271 words, 15.9 words per sentence on average

You can find a longer version of this essay here.

Who is valued most in society – old or young? (Long version)

Posted on April 6, 2012 by Mr Writefix

In some countries old age is highly valued, while in others youth is emphasized. Which viewpoint do you agree with?

In different parts of the world, we find greater or lesser status for some groups in society. Many Asian societies traditionally have a lot of respect for older people, but today in Asia, childhood and youth seems to be getting more and more attention. In this essay I will say why I think it can be unhealthy to place too much value on any group simply because of their age.

Old age is often associated with wisdom. With age comes experience, and in many societies younger family members consult older ones for advice on relationships or problems. In some societies, not just older living family members but ancestors are revered and consulted. However, if old age just involves the same experience over and over again, there may not be much wisdom or flexibility attached to it. People who have held the same position for many many years often are reluctant to change or to allow anyone else to introduce change. Companies or organizations run by older workers may become too conservative to succeed against competition from younger rivals. Many aging political leaders have wrecked their countries by refusing to step down or change policy. It’s clear that age by itself is not a qualification for anything.

But it’s equally foolish to focus too much on youth. Having hundreds of thousands of young graduates and a young, vibrant workforce in a country is usually regarded as an asset, but it can result in many poorly-paid jobs as employees for foreign companies. Both Communist and Fascist governments idolized their youth, but this was often a form of brainwashing, and to provide fodder for factories and armies. Today, Thai, Korean, and Filipino television and magazines are full of impossibly cute children, teenagers with flawless skin, and pop idols. This can create problems of self-esteem for the millions of ordinary people who do not match those images. As public debate and television become even more trivial and self-obsessed, billions of dollars are wasted by people on trying to look and act like children instead of adults with a mind and voice of their own.

In conclusion, an ideal society would have a balance. We should appreciate both the beauty and potential of youth and the advice and experience of old age, but should also be careful to understand the reality of each.

391 words, average 20 words per sentence. Too long for the 40-minute IELTS test, and very complicated. You can read a shorter (271-word) version of the same essay here.

Violence on Television (short)

Posted on October 23, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Television news shows many scenes of disasters and violence. What effect can this have on individuals and society?

It’s almost impossible to avoid seeing images of famine, war, natural disasters, and violence on our screens. These graphic images can encourage us to act, or leave us cold. In this essay I will discuss the effects of these constant powerful pictures.

It’s natural to respond to other people’s suffering. When we see hungry children or frightened refugees on our televisions, we want to send money or support. Huge relief efforts such as Live Aid or Action for Haiti have resulted from ordinary people’s reactions. Another natural response is anger. We ask our leaders to act to change the political or economic situation that causes the pain. Some people also take action themselves. They volunteer time in their home communities to raise funds, or even work or fight in the affected region.

Have a look at a longer (400-word) version of this essay

However, the frequency of these painful and violent scenes can also have opposite effects. First of all, it doesn’t seem right to watch tsunamis or other disasters while we are eating breakfast. Some people become obsessed with bad news on the television or internet. Second, it’s also natural to protect yourself and those around you. To reduce the impact on ourselves or our families, we change the television channel or make a joke about the conflict or continent affected. Finally, because the images seem never-ending, we get fed up sending money which does not seem to have any effect. Many people feel powerless and therefore do nothing, until an even more powerful image is forced on them.

In conclusion, these scenes can motivate us to act and help others, or they can discourage and depress us. It’s probably better to think carefully about what we watch and our reasons for watching.

Violence on Television (Long)

Posted on October 16, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Television news shows many scenes of disasters and violence. What effect can this have on individuals and society?

Satellite television and 24-hour news channels mean that viewers are inundated with images of natural disasters, wars and conflict from around the world. While it’s important to know what is going on in our world, it can be depressing or counter-productive to watch repeated images of famine, fighting or fear. In this essay, I will ask if these scenes have a negative effect on us.

Have a look at a shorter, 300-word version of this essay

Most people agree with the need for news organizations to provide us with up-to-date and accurate information, and live pictures convey information in a way that words cannot. For one thing, live footage or pictures allow us to understand the situation very rapidly. People can grasp what is happening much more quickly than by reading long articles. A second point is that pictures allow us to form our own idea of the situation, without input from the reporter or journalist. A picture of a starving refugee baby or of riot police and tear gas does not seem to need explanation. Finally, graphic pictures force us to see the situation as it affects normal people, not the politicians at their meetings or in their expensive cars.

However, the constant barrage of images can be counterproductive. Instead of learning more about the starving baby and what led to the situation, we push the image from our mind. To protect ourselves, we group the images: another typhoon in the Philippines, another earthquake in China, another bomb in Gaza. As more and more images appear we feel more and more powerless and unable to contribute to solving the problem. A second point is that news organizations compete to make their images more graphic: greater carnage, more crying mothers, angrier protestors. We also have to question the reliability of some of the images: are they staged? Many television stations and journalists have their own bias and agenda. The result of this is that watching the news becomes harder and we respond less and less to the situation and to the human suffering.

In conclusion, we need to stay informed but we also need to limit our exposure to the constant tide of news and shocking images. Too much can wear us down or make us callous, and we need to get past the simplistic images and understand the story behind it.

Should foreigners pay more? (short)

Posted on June 11, 2011 by Mr Writefix

In many places, foreign visitors are charged more than locals when they visit cultural or tourist attractions. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Tourist attractions often have two admission prices: one for locals or residents, and one for foreigners or visitors from far away. Some see this as discrimination, while others accept it as being fair. In this essay I will say why I think it is reasonable for foreign visitors to pay more.

I don’t think locals should pay the same as foreign tourists. For one thing, a historical attraction in my country is part of my heritage. My ancestors built it, and I should have free or cheap access so I can know my history. Second, let’s face it : most tourists are rich – or at least richer than us locals. If they can afford to fly from Australia or China to see a castle or a rare animal, than they can pay a few dollars more. In addition, I pay taxes in my country, so I have already paid a lot more from my salary than the foreign tourist who is only here for a few days.

I think foreigners should pay more for several reasons. First of all, it raises money to maintain the attraction. The higher admission fees from foreigners are important in Egypt or Mexico to preserve world-class historical sites. Secondly, tourists pay far more for their flights, hotels, and cocktails. A few dollars extra to visit a museum is nothing. Third, most tourists only visit the attraction once in their lives. Who is not prepared to pay a little extra for a special occasion?

To sum up, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to pay a little extra when I am in a new country, and vice versa. In fact, I’ve already started to save for my next trip!

Do we need so many languages? (short)

Posted on June 11, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Many languages are disappearing every year. Is this a bad thing, or could having fewer languages help bring people together?

Will we all think the same way in future? Or will countries communicate better? In this essay I will look at a future with fewer languages.

Many people worry about threats to their native language. They think they will lose their identity, and fear losing their culture, or even their religion. They worry that we will lose diversity and instead begin to think and act in the same way worldwide. Some even worry about the increased danger of conflict in a world with just five or six major languages.

However, this is too simplistic. It is true that many languages have disappeared and will disappear. But it’s important to remember that languages are alive, not static. English people do not talk like Shakespeare, and Greeks do not talk like Aristotle. Arabic changes, and so do Mandarin and Thai. New languages are developing right now. Second, even if a language changes, ideas remain. Not many Europeans speak Arabic today, but six hundred years ago it was the language of science. No one speaks Latin or ancient Greek, but the ideas of their philosophers still survive. Third, sharing a language is no guarantee against war. Many countries have vicious civil wars where both sides share a language.

In conclusion, our native language is one way of expressing our ideas and worldview. If it’s useful, we should use it, but we should also realize that our identity and potential is not limited to the geographical accident of our birthplace and native language. What’s more important is that we learn to think, reflect, and genuinely communicate with others, regardless of what languages we use.

Do we need so many languages? (long)

Posted on June 11, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Many languages are disappearing every year. Is this a bad thing, or could having fewer languages help bring people together?

The world appears to be moving towards a smaller number of languages such as English, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese or Hindi, each with millions or billions of speakers. Unfortunately this means that smaller languages are in danger of disappearing. Some people fear the loss of culture and identity, while others believe a world with easier communication would be a better place. In this essay, I will discuss the dangers of both outcomes.

We are indeed losing a lot of languages. One language expert estimates that 60%-80% of all languages will disappear in 100 years, just three generations from now. This is a major loss. First of all, the way that people think is to a certain degree rooted in their first languages. A community’s language is bound up with its way of life, culture, religious beliefs and identity. A second point is the loss of diversity: different languages can contribute to different ways of looking at and solving human problems. Thirdly, fewer languages does not necessarily mean better communication: it could even mean a dangerous situation with billions of people fighting against each other, rather than smaller groups as in the past. This could be the most important drawback: as more people speak one language, it becomes easier for billions to be influenced by shallow media or aggressive politicians.

However, there might be a lot to be gained from having fewer languages and greater communication. First of all is today’s practical problem of translation: business is more difficult, travel is more complicated, and misunderstandings arise. Another current problem is marginalization: communities who do not speak a major world language fall behind in science and technology and their economies suffer. Third, having fewer languages might mean more shared ideas. Global collaboration could happen instantly rather than taking years. And finally, although some people are afraid of the loss of culture or identity, it seems that good ideas can survive. We don’t speak Latin or classical Greek anymore, but the ideas and values of the people who spoke those languages are still with us.

In conclusion, it seems inevitable that some languages will disappear: like animals or plants, they need a specific habitat and can be squeezed out by stronger competitors. The answer is not to hide and isolate ourselves but to be confident about our identity in whatever language we speak.

Should foreigners pay more? (long)

Posted on June 7, 2011 by Mr Writefix

In many places, foreign visitors are charged more than locals when they visit cultural or tourist attractions. Do you agree or disagree with this?

To visit the beautiful and remote mountain kingdom of Bhutan, foreigners (everyone without a Bhutanese or an Indian passport) have to pay up to $240 a day. This is an extreme example of charging visitors more than locals, but the country has many valid reasons for this policy. In this essay, I will say why I generally agree with foreigners paying more to visit cultural or historical sites.

It’s easy to see why some foreign visitors resent being charged more. First of all, nobody likes to pay more than other people for the same thing. It’s irritating to know that the person beside you in a queue or at a tourist attraction has paid much less just because of his or her nationality. A second annoying point is that you often don’t get any better service just because you have paid more to enter a historical site or entertainment venue. In fact, the place is often overcrowded with locals and your visit can suffer. Furthermore, knowing that you as a foreign visitor are paying more often makes you bad-tempered and therefore less likely to enjoy the experience. Finally, some think that places such as Cambodia’s Angkor Wat or Ireland’s Cliffs of Moher are world cultural or natural treasures and should be open to everyone. They are not the property of some money-grabbing ministry.

However, there are good reasons why overseas visitors should pay more. For one thing, foreign tourism is still a privilege of the well-off. Why should countries not charge rich visitors as much as the market will bear? Nobody is forced to visit these places. Second, the attraction or cultural site is part of the local community’s history and heritage. They should not have to pay to learn about their own history. A third point is that it is extremely expensive to maintain places like Istanbul’s Topkapi palace. Tourists who may be visiting once in a lifetime can and should contribute to the cost of maintenance. In fact, this is the most important point: if you have dreamed all your life of visiting Peru’s Machu Picchu or China’s Terracotta Army then surely you are ready to spend a little more for this experience.

In conclusion, we need to put things in perspective. The admission fees rarely add much to the cost of our visit, compared to hotels or travel, and we as foreign travelers help maintain and preserve the site for the locals and for future generations.

Writefix.com

Argument essays, graphs, other writing, and speaking for IELTS, PET, and TOEFL

Category: Culture

Should college students stay at home? (very short version)

Related Posts:

Is ambition positive or negative?

Related Posts:

Who is valued most in society – old or young? (Short version)

Related Posts:

Who is valued most in society – old or young? (Long version)

Related Posts:

Violence on Television (short)

Related Posts:

Violence on Television (Long)

Related Posts:

Should foreigners pay more? (short)

Related Posts:

Do we need so many languages? (short)

Related Posts:

Do we need so many languages? (long)

Related Posts:

Should foreigners pay more? (long)

Related Posts: