11/8/2018: It is a natural process for animal species to become extinct (e.g.

Dinosaur, dodos ...) There is no reason why people should try to prevent this
from happening. Do you agree or disagree?

It is contended by many that the extermination of certain wildlife species is an

inevitable part of natural selection and occurs even in the absence of human
interference. I completely disagree with this judgment.

Firstly, human influence has been proven to be responsible for the extinction of
certain species. For hundreds of years, the progressive expansion of humans’
territory, especially for cultivation and habitation has resulted in the loss of
animal habitat. Hunting, to a large extent, is driving numerous species to mass
extinction or to the degree they are gravely threatened. Therefore, it is
imperative humans assume the responsibility for reversing the situation and
overcome the consequences.

Secondly, animals play a significant role in maintaining the biodiversity. In other

words, different species are mutually reliant on each other in the food chain, and
their roles are equally indispensable. Considering this, the demise of a certain
species from the chain can result in the widespread disruption of ecosystems. For
example, if there were no mosquitoes, many lizards or other insect eating animals
would starve and die.

Finally, the efforts expended to save animal species act as a educational tool,
which may somehow change the course of nature. For example, keeping
animals in zoos can shelter them against possible threats such as scarcity of
foods or other predators which they are likely to confront in the wilderness.
With better protection and more zoo-based awareness raising activities, the
public can be aware of the gravity of the situation and together join hands to
preserve animal species, especially rare and endangered ones.

In conclusion, due to the unparalleled functions and merits of wildlife

protection mentioned above, I believe that making efforts to save wildlife from
extinction is worthwhile.
18/8/2018: In the modern world it is possible to shop, work and communicate
with people via internet and live without any face-to-face contact with others.
Is it a positive or negative development in your opinion?

The past few decades have witnessed the prevalence of Internet-based

communication, shopping and transaction activities. From my perspective, this
development presents both positive and negative aspects equally.

On the one hand, the unrestricted access to the Internet has benefited greatly the
public for its convenience and comfort. It is undoubted that telecommunication
tools including email, instant messaging or social networks facilitate people’s
interaction, bringing people closer together. For instance, an international
student or a foreign worker in the USA can deliver a message to his friends or
family back home in Vietnam, only at the click of a mouse regardless of
geographical barriers. Another example is that shoppers can seek out items or
services of the finest quality without engaging in lengthy commutes, especially
during extreme weather conditions like torrential rain or scorching heat of the
summer.

On the other hand, certain detriments are associated with the excessive Internet
use. The over-reliance on virtual communication is the primary cause of the
decline in social skills which are crucial for real-life contact. It is not
uncommon for heavy social network users to feel awkward when trying to strike
up conversations with strangers or make small talk about social events. Thus,
these people might eventually become socially alienated and suffer from a great
sense of solitude. Another harmful aspect is the diminished physical and mental
condition. The overindulgence in the virtual world would undoubtedly trigger
a sedentary lifestyle, which is responsible for a number of health-related
problems such as impaired vision, obesity or the inability to process and
express emotions

In conclusion, both positive implications on certain aspects in life and negative

impacts on lifestyle and health can be seen considering the uncontrolled Internet
use for shopping, working and communication purposes.

285 words, best length in real exams

8/9/2018 [Hard] Given the high unemployment rate, it is recommended that
the government only provide primary education and no secondary education.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is argued by a few that against the backdrop of the joblessness situation faced
by many countries, secondary education should be removed from orthodox
curriculum. I am thoroughly against this notion..

Firstly, halting the provision of secondary education could hinder the

opportunity for further education, which might even worsen the
unemployment issue. This level of schooling acts as a transitional phase as
students are taught prerequisite skills and knowledge to flourish in university
and their future career. As a result, deprived of the chance for secondary
education, students would merely have basic knowledge of surrounding things
and fail to have solid foundation knowledge to get themselves ready for
specializing in a certain field at university. This then makes students end up
taking low-paid jobs or even being unemployed as many jobs currently require
a high degree of knowledge.

The argument that the supply of only primary-level education and total
elimination of secondary one is a solution in the context of a high
unemployment rate appears to be attractive to a certain extent. As argued, huge
amounts of budget can be economized as there is no longer the need for hiring
teachers, constructing schools or other exorbitant overhead costs, and they can
be allocated to the creation of more jobs. Also, in some countries most secondary
students drop out of their school despite the support they receive from the
government as they have no interest for schooling. However, I would argue that
an investment in education is a long-term goal, and the costs expended are well
worth the employment opportunities that students would gain later as
mentioned earlier; in addition, drop-out rate can be minimized by a more
scientific curriculum that should focus more on job orientation and practical
experience rather than mere theory.

In conclusion, due to the unparalleled merits that secondary education brings to

the society, it is ungrounded to propose that this level of schooling should be
made unavailable in combating rising unemployment rate.
15/9/2018: Most of the world’s urgent problems are caused by over-
population. Do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that a majority of pressing global issues are engendered by
population explosion. In my opinion, I completely agree with this point of view
for some reasons.

One vexing problem worth mentioning is the chronic shortage of housing in

many major cities worldwide, especially in densely populated areas in the city
center. The primary cause of such an issue is the massive influx of rural migrants
who flock to cities in search of better job or education opportunities.
Exemplary examples include Beijing or Ho Chi Minh where governments have
made enormous efforts to combat the overcrowding issue, but fail to gain a
satisfactory result.

Another problem is pollution and climate change, triggered mainly by the

burgeoning global population. When many residents inhabit a place, their daily
activities tend to do great harm to the surroundings, either accidentally or
deliberately. For example, households can dump their waste directly into lakes
and rivers, or consume too many plastic bags, which leads to an increment in
the landfill size whereas deforestation can increase the global temperature
tremendously. Worse still, coupled with the ever-increasing size of population,
the problem seems to exacerbate.

Other global issues such as food security, illiteracy or poor healthcare are just
amongst the many problems that are caused by the uncontrolled growth of
population. If there were few people on this Earth, food supplies can be
sufficient to feed the population, or there would be enough schools for children to
go to, and hospitals could adequately cater to the needs of patients when they are
ill.

In conclusion, I wholeheartedly agree with the view that it is over-population that

triggers the many above-mentioned issues; therefore, actions should be taken to
slow down population growth worldwide.

288 words (best exam length)