Opinion Essay

Prison is the best punishment for criminals. How far do you agree or disagree with this statement. Give reasons for
your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

These days, every time you turn on your television or flick through the pages of newspaper, you learn about the
victims of crime. But what is the most effective way of combating crime? Some people believe that sending
criminals to prison can help in reducing the crime rates. I agree to some extent with this idea but firmly believe
that prison is the place of rehabilitation but must be used only as a last option.

Disagree
Firstly, life in jail is far too comfortable for prisoners. For example, many inmates have access to luxuries such as
televisions, computers and sports facilities and so on. In other words, spending time behind bars is more like being
in a holiday camp. If prison is going to act as a deterrent, then I believe it needs to be considerably tougher.

Disagree
Another reason why I disagree with prison as a punishment is that a large number of prisoners are not actually a
danger to society. Take shoplifters as an example. They are often locked up in the same cells as murderers, rapists
and violent criminals. I strongly believe that this is a serious waste of taxpayers’ money. What is more, petty
criminals may even learn how to commit more serious crimes when they are inside.

Agree
On the other hand, there is an argument that prison can help to rehabilitate offenders. Many inmates have the
opportunity to study while they are doing time. As a result, many never re-offend when they are released.

Discussion Essay

Prison as punishment for criminals is a very effective way. Discuss

It is often believed that serving a prison sentence is the most beneficial method to decrease crime rates. However,
in my opinion, governments should deal with criminals depending on how serious the crime is and put them into
prisons only if they cause danger to the society. This essay will discuss both sides of the argument and draw a
conclusion.

It is often believed that serving a prison sentence is the most beneficial method to decrease crime rates. I agree to
some extent with this idea but firmly believe that prison is the place of rehabilitation however must be used only
as a last option.

(Support Prison) Why prison is Effective Way (Agree)

On the other hand, prison can help to rein the crime to some level. To make criminals afraid of re-offending they
are strictly controlled and even tortured in prison. A lot of prisoners understand the bad consequences and start to
abide by rules. To illustrate, majority of offenders give up their "bad" habits after being kept from a prison.

there is an argument that prison can help to rehabilitate offenders.

On the one hand, the purpose of prisons is to stop re-offends. To make them afraid of re-offending they are strictly
controlled and even tortured there. A lot of prisoners understand the bad consequences and start to abide by rules.
To illustrate, majority of offenders give up their "bad" habits after being kept from a prison. Therefore, prison can
act as a deterrent when tackling crimes.

Why prison is Ineffective way (Disagree)

On the other hand, I regard prison as the last option for punishment because a large number of prisoners are not
actually a danger to society. Take shoplifters as an example. They are often locked up in the same cells as
murderers, rapists and violent criminals. This may lead the petty criminals to learn how to commit more serious
crimes when they are inside. Also, mixing offenders with criminals may results in a networking event for dangerous
criminals.

Another Reason (Disagree)

Another reason, life in jail is far too comfortable for prisoners. For example, many inmates have access to luxuries
such as televisions, computers and sports facilities and so on. In other words, spending time behind bars is more
like being in a holiday camp. If prison is going to act as a deterrent, then I believe it needs to be considerably
tougher.

In conclusion, although it is a common belief that prison is the best way to punish criminals, I believe it is too soft
and that it is not necessary in the majority of cases. Personally, I think prison should be the last option when all else
has failed.

In many countries, prison is the most common solution for crimes. However, many think that better education is the
most effective way to prevent people from committing future crime.

Reason One, mixing offenders with criminals is almost like a Networking event for criminals.
Its not encouraging positive behaviour
They can learn new skills, they learn the errors of the ways
Three times less likely to commit crime

On the other hand, several other punishment methods can also be implemented as an alternative to prison
sentences. Firstly, charging petty criminals with fines is also acceptable. In this way, they repay for the damage they
have done. Secondly, criminals can be punished with anti-social behaviour oder. In other words, they will not be
allowed to go certain places. Unlike prisoners, offenders which are punished in this way will have low rates of re-
offending as they are not influenced by "dangerous" inmates such as criminals, rapists and serial killers. Thus, it is
better to punish minor criminals in less stricter ways.

https://ieltsband7.com/ielts-essay-type/prison-as-punishment-essay-for-ielts/

Agree/Disagree/Opinion
Word Count: 285

It is often believed that serving a prison sentence is the most beneficial method to decrease crime rates. However,
in my opinion, governments should deal with criminals depending on how serious the crime is and put them into
prisons only if they cause danger to society. This essay, will discuss both sides of the argument and draw a
conclusion. In this essay, I will discuss both sides of the argument and corroborate my standpoint.

First of all, I regard prison as the last option for punishment because a large number of prisoners are not actually a
danger to society. Take shoplifters as an example. They are often locked up in the same cells as murderers, rapists
and, violent criminals. Influence of such dangerous criminals may encourage petty offenders to open up more to
the criminal world and thus increasing their chances of doing more serious crimes.

Another reason why I disagree with prison as a punishment is that life in jail is far too comfortable for prisoners.
For example, many inmates have access to luxuries such as televisions, computers, sports facilities and so on. In
other words, spending time behind bars is more like being in a holiday camp. If prison is going to act as a deterrent,
then I believe it needs to be considerably tougher.
On the other hand, prison can help to rehabilitate offenders. It has often been seen that prisoners on realizing their
mistakes, improve on themselves personally as well as professionally. This is mostly possible because of the various
courses being offered to them.

In conclusion, although it is a common belief that prison is the best way to punish criminals, I believe it is not
necessary in the majority of cases. Personally, I think prison should be the last option when all else has failed.

http://www.ielts-practice.org/some-people-think-that-prison-is-the-best-place-for-criminals-band-8-
ielts-essay-sample/

Nowadays mobile phones and the internet became a vary common aspect of socialising. Do you the advantages of
this development overweigh its disadvantages?
Give your opinion and relevant examples.

The trend of communication with loved ones through numerous social media platforms has augmented in the last
few years. This style of interaction certainly has some drawbacks. However, they are far outnumber by the benefits.
In this essay I will corroborate my standpoint.

In conclusion, having discussed both pros and cons of using cell phone and internet for personal interactions, I feel
that benefits are far greater in terms of convenience these technologies offers.

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 make? Has this been a positive or
negative development?

It is true that new technologies have had a tremendous influence on communication between people. Technology
has affected relationships in various ways, and in my opinion there are both positive and negative effects.

Ways the technology has affected the various type of relationship

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.

Positive
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 personal meetings, and many of us benefit from these
interactions, either in work or social contexts.

Negative
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 revolutionised communication between people, but not all of the outcomes
of this revolution have been positive.

Some people think that the range of technology available to people is increasing the gap between the rich and the
poor. Others think it has an opposite effect. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Word Count: 294

It is true that the advent of technology has brought tremendous benefits to human life. While technology can
narrow the gap between social classes to some extent, I believe that some technological products have set affluent
individuals apart from others, as will now be discussed.

Reduce the Gap

On the one hand, it is true that technology has transformed our lives and reduced the gap between individuals.
The availability of technological products has allowed massive numbers of people to live a comfortable life in
almost the same way. For example, today nearly every household has at least a television, a fridge or an air-
conditioner, all of which help to increase the overall standard of living and narrow the gap between the haves and
the have-nots in society.

Widened the Gap

On the other hand, some feel that technology has bridged the gap between the rich and the poor. I take a side
with those who argue that some technology has separated wealthy individuals from poorer ones. Many
technological products are prohibitively expensive, and only the rich are able to afford them. Luxury cars and
private jets, for instance, have created a shining image for the owners, giving them an aura of confidence when
they appear in public. Those who live on a meager income, in contrast, could merely enjoy a frugal life with
mediocre but necessary consumer products. The idea of possessing the latest technology in the home might be far-
fetched to bourgeois individuals.

In conclusion, although some technological products are produced for the masses, I believe that some others
contribute to the difference in lifestyles between rich people and poor ones.

Meager: અપપરતત;ત lacking in quantity or quality.

Frugal: કરકસરરયત;ત sparing or economical with regard to money or food
Mediocre: મધયમ; of only moderate quality; not very good
Bourgeois: સમમજનમ મધયમ વરરનત ; of or characteristic of the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived
materialistic values or conventional attitudes
Omniscient: knowing everything
Accord: an official agreement

Government
The government should close the companies that produce toxic waste materials without their own waste treatment
facilities in order to protect the environment.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Use specific reasons and examples to support your position.
Many people believe that the administration must give an order to prohibit the operations of companies that yield
toxic waste products without having their own waste disposal treatment facility, to help minimize the detrimental
effects to the natural resources. This essay strongly agrees that the government should impose this law in order to
protect the environment.

On the one hand, countries need to compete with the demanding world of technology and development.
Therefore, government encourages investors to try and build different manufacturing companies so that they can
help increase the gross capital of a country. They are so focused on profits and investments that they are being
lenient in managing the laws that protect the natural surroundings. As a result there are a lot of rivers and lakes
that are being polluted for the sake of monetary gains. For example, the World Wildlife Fund in 2018 reported that
over 100 lakes and rivers in Southeast Asia were polluted due to companies that throw their waste into these
bodies of water.

On the other hand, the trend of protecting the environment is increasing by knowing the fact the effects are
irreversible and can harm the entire world. Some companies are obliged to build and manage their own material
disposal and recovery facility, which recycles, limits and properly disposes of the toxic wastes that they produce. In
addition, corporations are encouraged to create foundations that help protect the natural flora and fauna. For
instance, an article by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in the Philippines in 2017 stated that
foundations supported by non-government units are more successful in their endeavours in protecting the
environment versus government funded ones.

In conclusion, the government, its people and their businesses should work hand in hand in order to protect and
save the environment. Punishments should be given to those people or companies who exploit the ecosystem.
Policies and laws should be applied to all or else, not at all.

Should governments spend more money on improving roads and highways, or should governments spend more
money on improving public transportation (buses, trains, subways)? Why?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

People have different views about how the government should utilise their budgets on transportation areas. Some
people think that the government should spend more money on developing streets and highways, while others
believe that improving public transportations is the most important one. I believe that both aspects are important
and should be proportionately improved.

On the one hand, a group of people thinks that the government should focus on improving their street, road and
highway facilities. They believe that public accesses are vital for the economic development of the respective
country. Without the existence of qualified roads and highways, it will be difficult for industries to grow, as there
will be some obstacles for the supply of raw materials and deliveries of goods. Consequently, it will impact on the
efficiency of many companies and also to the government's income tax.

On the other hand, other people think governments should spend more budgets on improving and maintaining
public transportation such as buses, trains, aeroplanes, and ferries. They believe that if the government could
improve the quality of these mass transportation facilities, it will reduce traffic and air pollution problems. As public
transportations become more convenient and safe, more people will use them, and it will gradually reduce the
number of private vehicle users. As a consequent, it will reduce traffic congestion and reduce air pollution as well.

In conclusion, I personally believe that the government's spending on public accesses and transportations are both
essentials. And it becomes the government's task to allocate those budgets proportionately for both areas since we
could not focus on one area and abandoned the other. It would be useless for a country to have good public
transportations, without the support of good roads and highways.
Some people think that the government should spend more money on public service rather than wasting money on
the arts. To what extent do you agree.

It is a known fact that the government is spending a large sum of money on different sectors. Arts is of no
exception. Although I agree that, it is important to spend more amount on public services, it did not mean that
spending on art is a waste of money.

There are several reasons to spend a significant amount of money on public sectors. First and foremost, the
government should allocate the funds according to the priority, where the public services are the prime focus. That
includes hospitals, schools and roads. Attributing the budget in these field will strengthen the health, education
and transportation of the people which in turn will escalate the standard of a country. For instance, through more
governmental hospitals the health of the citizens will increase. Similarly, quality education can be delivered to
children through educational advancement.
However, this does not mean that the arts should be neglected. To begin with, it is the responsibility of a
government to preserve the culture and heritage of a country, which exist through the field of arts. Furthermore,
many arts institutions are facing many hurdles to generate much profit. So without some help from the
government many theatres and other such places cannot withstand. Moreover, arts also have an important impact
in our quality of life. Many people get pleasure in going to see music and theatre performance. So it is the duty of
the government to assist such institutions that can continue providing entertainment to the public. Finally, arts
brings economic benefits to a nation in the form of tourism, where arts play a key role.

To sum up, spending on public service ensure a large amount of benefits to the society. But I do not believe utilizing
budget on arts is a waste of money as this too have great impact on the society.

It is argued by some people that public service should be given top priority in terms of funding than to arts. In my
opinion, although, public service such as health care and transportation plays an important role in people,
investment in arts sector should not be diverted away.

Firstly, health care system, a basic need to people obviously must rate top category, as long as health is good, a
better productivity of a country is expected, compromising in health sector tends downfall of nation. Government
should forecast a budget plan to establish more health sector not only in cities but also in urban areas.

Secondly, public transportation also plays a vital role in development of nation. Through only the means of
transportation people can travel to any corner of the world, thus, funding in transportation sector helps greater
movement of people throughout the nation and the world . Definitely, this can help improve the developing
process of the country , exchange of goods ,employment opportunity, tourism attraction are some positive
feedback of growing transportation.

On the other hand, overshadowing the value of arts via cutting off budget on this sector leads lack on
preservation of our heritage and culture. Eventually, these aspect of society will demolish with no existence. In
addition, arts and culture are the ornaments of country that make us renown in the world. It is a source of
tourist attraction through which tourist industry can flourish giving benefit to the country. Moreover, arts and
craft make the history stay alive to stage of generation. Therefore authority should have keen interest on this field
as well.

In conclusion, although, public service has much importance in the development of country, government must
equally divide the budget in all sector including arts and architecture.