Agree Disagree

1. As well as making money, businesses also have social responsibilities.

Towhat extent do you agree or disagree?

Businesses have always sought to make a profit, but it is becoming increasingly

common to hear people talk about the social obligations that companies have. I
completely agree with the idea that businesses should do more for society than
simply make money.
On the one hand, I accept that businesses must make money in order to survive in
a competitive world. It seems logical that the priority of any company should be to
cover its running costs, such as employees’ wages and payments for buildings
and utilities. On top of these costs, companies also need to invest in
improvements and innovations if they wish to remain successful. If a company is
unable to pay its bills or meet the changing needs of customers, any concerns
about social responsibilities become irrelevant. In other words, a company can
only make a positive contribution to society if it is in good financial health.
On the other hand, companies should not be run with the sole aim of maximising
profit; they have a wider role to play in society. One social obligation that owners
and managers have is to treat their employees well, rather than exploiting them.
For example, they could pay a “living wage” to ensure that workers have a good
quality of life. I also like the idea that businesses could use a proportion of their
profits to support local charities, environmental projects or education initiatives.
Finally, instead of trying to minimise their tax payments by using accounting
loopholes, I believe that company bosses should be happy to contribute to society
through the tax system.
In conclusion, I believe that companies should place as much importance on their
social responsibilities as they do on their financial objectives.

2. Some people think that instead of preventing climate change, we need to

finda 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

Agree Disagree 1
 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
individuals, we should also try to limit our contribution to climate change, by
becoming 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.

3. Most people have forgotten the meaning behind traditional or religious

festivals; during festival periods, people nowadays only want to enjoy
themselves. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Some people argue that we no longer remember the original meaning of festivals,
and that most of us treat them as opportunities to have fun. While I agree that
enjoyment seems to be the priority during festival times, I do not agree that people
have forgotten what these festivals mean.

On the one hand, religious and traditional festivals have certainly become times
for celebration. In the UK, Christmas is a good example of a festival period when
people are most concerned with shopping, giving and receiving presents,

Agree Disagree 2
 decorating their homes and enjoying traditional meals with their families. Most
people look forward to Christmas as a holiday period, rather than a time to
practise religion. Similar behaviour can be seen during non-religious festivals,
such as Bonfire Night. People associate this occasion with making fires, watching
firework displays, and perhaps going to large events in local parks; in other words,
enjoyment is people’s primary goal.

However, I disagree with the idea that the underlying meaning of such festivals
has been forgotten. In UK primary schools, children learn in detail about the
religious reasons for celebrating Christmas, Easter and a variety of festivals in
other religions. For example, in late December, children sing Christmas songs
which have a religious content, and they may even perform nativity plays telling
the story of Jesus’ birth. Families also play a role in passing knowledge of
religious festivals’ deeper significance on to the next generation. The same is true
for festivals that have a historical background, such as Bonfire Night or Halloween,
in the sense that people generally learn the stories behind these occasions at an
early age.

In conclusion, although people mainly want to enjoy themselves during festivals, I

believe that they are still aware of the reasons for these celebrations.

4. The money spent by governments on space programmes would be better

spenton vital public services such as schools and hospitals. To what extent do
you agree or disagree?

Governments in some countries spend large amounts of money on space

exploration programmes. I completely agree with the idea that these are a waste
of money, and that the funds should be allocated to public services.
There are several reasons why space programmes should be abandoned. Firstly,
it is extremely expensive to train scientists and other staff involved with space
missions, and facilities and equipment also come at a huge cost to the
government. Secondly, these programmes do not benefit normal people in our
daily lives; they are simply vanity projects for politicians. Finally, many missions to
space fail completely, and the smallest technological error can cost astronauts
their lives. The Challenger space shuttle disaster showed us that space travel is
extremely dangerous, and in my opinion it is not worth the risk.

Agree Disagree 3
 I believe that the money from space programmes should go to vital public
services instead. It is much cheaper to train doctors, teachers, police and other
public service workers than it is to train astronauts or the scientists and engineers
who work on space exploration projects. Furthermore, public servants do jobs that
have a positive impact on every member of society. For example, we all use
schools, hospitals and roads, and we all need the security that the police provide.
If governments reallocated the money spent on space travel and research, many
thousands of people could be lifted out of poverty or given a better quality of life.

In conclusion, my view is that governments should spend money on services that

benefit all members of society, and it is wrong to waste resources on projects that
do not improve our everyday lives.

5. Some people who have been in prison become good citizens later, and it is
often argued that these are the best people to talk to teenagers about the
dangers of committing a crime. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is true that ex-prisoners can become normal, productive members of society. I

completely agree with the idea that allowing such people to speak to teenagers
about their experiences is the best way to discourage them from breaking the law.

In my opinion, teenagers are more likely to accept advice from someone who can
speak from experience. Reformed offenders can tell young people about how they
became involved in crime, the dangers of a criminal lifestyle, and what life in
prison is really like. They can also dispel any ideas that teenagers may have about
criminals leading glamorous lives. While adolescents are often indifferent to the
guidance given by older people, I imagine that most of them would be extremely
keen to hear the stories of an ex-offender. The vivid and perhaps shocking nature
of these stories is likely to have a powerful impact.

The alternatives to using reformed criminals to educate teenagers about crime

would be much less effective. One option would be for police officers to visit
schools and talk to young people. This could be useful in terms of informing teens
about what happens to lawbreakers when they are caught, but young people are
often reluctant to take advice from figures of authority. A second option would be
for school teachers to speak to their students about crime, but I doubt that
students would see teachers as credible sources of information about this topic.

Agree Disagree 4
 Finally, educational films might be informative, but there would be no opportunity
for young people to interact and ask questions.

In conclusion, I fully support the view that people who have turned their lives
around after serving a prison sentence could help to deter teenagers from
committing crimes.

6. The older generations tend to have very traditional ideas about how people
should live, think and behave. However, some people believe that these ideas
are not helpful in preparing younger generations for modern life.To what extent
do you agree or disagree with this view?

It is true that many older people believe in traditional values that often seem
incompatible with the needs of younger people. While I agree that some traditional
ideas are outdated, I believe that others are still useful and should not be
forgotten.

On the one hand, many of the ideas that elderly people have about life are
becoming less relevant for younger people. In the past, for example, people were
advised to learn a profession and find a secure job for life, but today’s workers
expect much more variety and diversity from their careers. At the same time, the
‘rules’ around relationships are being eroded as young adults make their own
choices about who and when to marry. But perhaps the greatest disparity
between the generations can be seen in their attitudes towards gender roles. The
traditional roles of men and women, as breadwinners and housewives, are no
longer accepted as necessary or appropriate by most younger people.
On the other hand, some traditional views and values are certainly applicable to
the modern world. For example, older generations attach great importance to
working hard, doing one’s best, and taking pride in one’s work, and these
behaviours can surely benefit young people as they enter today’s competitive job
market. Other characteristics that are perhaps seen as traditional are politeness
and good manners. In our globalised world, young adults can expect to come into
contact with people from a huge variety of backgrounds, and it is more important
than ever to treat others with respect. Finally, I believe that young people would
lead happier lives if they had a more ‘old-fashioned’ sense of community and
neighbourliness.

Agree Disagree 5
 In conclusion, although the views of older people may sometimes seem unhelpful
in today’s world, we should not dismiss all traditional ideas as irrelevant.

7. Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a

wasteof resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild
animals because we humans have no need for them. I completely disagree with
this point of view.

In my opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild animals have no place in the 21st
century. I do not believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit of humans,
and there is nothing special about this particular century that means that we
suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the extinction of any species.
Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why we should let animals die out. We
do not need to exploit or destroy every last square metre of land in order to feed
or accommodate the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist
side by side with wild animals, and this should be our aim.

I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is
usually the protection of natural habitats that ensures the survival of wild animals,
and most scientists agree that these habitats are also crucial for human survival.
For example, rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilise the
Earth’s climate. If we destroyed these areas, the costs of managing the resulting
changes to our planet would far outweigh the costs of conservation. By protecting
wild animals and their habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth.

In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist,
and I believe that we should do everything we can to protect them.

8. Families who send their children to private schools should not be required to
pay taxes that support the state education system. To what extent do you agree
or disagree with this statement?

Some people believe that parents of children who attend private schools should
not need to contribute to state schools through taxes. Personally, I completely
disagree with this view.

For a variety of reasons, it would be wrong to reduce taxes for families who pay
for private education. Firstly, it would be difficult to calculate the correct amount

Agree Disagree 6
 of tax reduction for these families, and staff would be required to manage this
complex process. Secondly, we all pay a certain amount of tax for public services
that we may not use. For example, most people are fortunate enough not to have
to call the police or fire brigade at any time in their lives, but they would not expect
a tax reduction for this. Finally, if wealthy families were given a tax discount for
sending their children to private schools, we might have a situation where poorer
people pay higher taxes than the rich.
In my opinion, we should all be happy to pay our share of the money that supports
public schools. It is beneficial for all members of society to have a high quality
education system with equal opportunities for all young people. This will result in a
well-educated workforce, and in turn a more productive and prosperous nation.
Parents of children in private schools may also see the advantages of this in their
own lives. For example, a company owner will need well qualified and competent
staff, and a well-funded education system can provide such employees.
In conclusion, I do not believe that any financial concessions should be made for
people who choose private education.

9. Nowadays celebrities are more famous for their glamour and wealth than for
their achievements, and this sets a bad example to young people.To what extent
do you agree or disagree with this statement?
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 programme. 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 behaviour
promotes the idea that appearance, glamour and media profile are more important
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

Agree Disagree 7
 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, although it is hard to argue that there are still people who are
famous for their notorious behavior, the majority of celebrities nowadays
demonstrate healthy personal images, which the public can learn from.

10. Foreign visitors should pay more than local visitors for cultural and
historical attractions. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

It is sometimes argued that tourists from overseas should be charged more

than local residents to visit important sites and monuments. I completely disagree
with this idea.
The argument in favour of higher prices for foreign tourists would be that cultural
or historical attractions often depend on state subsidies to keep them going, which
means that the resident population already pays money to these sites through the
tax system. However, I believe this to be a very shortsighted view. Foreign tourists
contribute to the economy of the host country with the money they spend on a
wide range of goods and services, including food, souvenirs, accommodation and
travel. The governments and inhabitants of every country should be happy to
subsidise important tourist sites and encourage people from the rest of the world
to visit them.
If travellers realised that they would have to pay more to visit historical and
cultural attractions in a particular nation, they would perhaps decide not to go to
that country on holiday. To take the UK as an example, the tourism industry and
many related jobs rely on visitors coming to the country to see places like Windsor
Castle or Saint Paul’s Cathedral. These two sites charge the same price regardless
of nationality, and this helps to promote the nation’s cultural heritage. If overseas
tourists stopped coming due to higher prices, there would be a risk of insufficient
funding for the maintenance of these important buildings.

Agree Disagree 8
 In conclusion, I believe that every effort should be made to attract tourists from
overseas, and it would be counterproductive to make them pay more than local
residents.

11. When choosing a job, the salary is the most important consideration. To
whatextent do you agree or disagree?

Many people choose their jobs based on the size of the salary offered. Personally,
I disagree with the idea that money is the key consideration when deciding on a
career, because I believe that other factors are equally important.
On the one hand, I agree that money is necessary in order for people to meet their
basic needs. For example, we all need money to pay for housing, food, bills, health
care, and education. Most people consider it a priority to at least earn a salary that
allows them to cover these needs and have a reasonable quality of life. If people
chose their jobs based on enjoyment or other non-financial factors, they might
find it difficult to support themselves. Artists and musicians, for instance, are
known for choosing a career path that they love, but that does not always provide
them with enough money to live comfortably and raise a family.

Nevertheless, I believe that other considerations are just as important as what we

earn in our jobs. Firstly, personal relationships and the atmosphere in a workplace
are extremely important when choosing a job. Having a good manager or friendly
colleagues, for example, can make a huge difference to workers’ levels of
happiness and general quality of life. Secondly, many people’s feelings of job
satisfaction come from their professional achievements, the skills they learn, and
the position they reach, rather than the money they earn. Finally, some people
choose a career because they want to help others and contribute something
positive to society.
In conclusion, while salaries certainly affect people’s choice of profession, I do not
believe that money outweighs all other motivators.

12. Some people believe that hobbies need to be difficult to be enjoyable.To

what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some hobbies are relatively easy, while others present more of a challenge.
Personally, I believe that both types of hobby can be fun, and I therefore disagree
with the statement that hobbies need to be difficult in order to be enjoyable.

Agree Disagree 9
 On the one hand, many people enjoy easy hobbies. One example of an activity
that is easy for most people is swimming. This hobby requires very little
equipment, it is simple to learn, and it is inexpensive. I remember learning to swim
at my local swimming pool when I was a child, and it never felt like a demanding or
challenging experience. Another hobby that I find easy and fun is photography. In
my opinion, anyone can take interesting pictures without knowing too much about
the technicalities of operating a camera. Despite being straightforward, taking
photos is a satisfying activity.
On the other hand, difficult hobbies can sometimes be more exciting. If an activity
is more challenging, we might feel a greater sense of satisfaction when we
manage to do it successfully. For example, film editing is a hobby that requires a
high level of knowledge and expertise. In my case, it took me around two years
before I became competent at this activity, but now I enjoy it much more than I did
when I started. I believe that many hobbies give us more pleasure when we reach
a higher level of performance because the results are better and the feeling of
achievement is greater.

In conclusion, simple hobbies can be fun and relaxing, but difficult hobbies can be
equally pleasurable for different reasons.

13. Some people think that all teenagers should be required to do unpaid work
in their free time to help the local community. They believe this would benefit
both the individual teenager and society as a whole. Do you agree or disagree?
Many young people work on a volunteer basis, and this can only be beneficial for
both the individual and society as a whole. However, I do not agree that we should
therefore force all teenagers to do unpaid work.
Most young people are already under enough pressure with their studies, without
being given the added responsibility of working in their spare time. School is just
as demanding as a full-time job, and teachers expect their students to do
homework and exam revision on top of attending lessons every day. When young
people do have some free time, we should encourage them to enjoy it with their
friends or to spend it doing sports and other leisure activities. They have many
years of work ahead of them when they finish their studies.

At the same time, I do not believe that society has anything to gain from obliging
young people to do unpaid work. In fact, I would argue that it goes against the

Agree Disagree 10
 values of a free and fair society to force a group of people to do something
against their will. Doing this can only lead to resentment amongst young people,
who would feel that they were being used, and parents, who would not want to be
told how to raise their children. Currently, nobody is forced to volunteer, and this is
surely the best system.

In conclusion, teenagers may choose to work for free and help others, but in my
opinion we should not make this compulsory.

14. We cannot help everyone in the world that needs help, so we should only
beconcerned with our own communities and countries.To what extent do you
agree or disagree with this statement?

Some people believe that we should not help people in other countries as long as
there are problems in our own society. I disagree with this view because I believe
that we should try to help as many people as possible.
On the one hand, I accept that it is important to help our neighbours and fellow
citizens. In most communities there are people who are impoverished or
disadvantaged in some way. It is possible to find homeless people, for example, in
even the wealthiest of cities, and for those who are concerned about this problem,
there are usually opportunities to volunteer time or give money to support these
people. In the UK, people can help in a variety of ways, from donating clothing to
serving free food in a soup kitchen. As the problems are on our doorstep, and
there are obvious ways to help, I can understand why some people feel that we
should prioritise local charity.
At the same time, I believe that we have an obligation to help those who live
beyond our national borders. In some countries the problems that people face are
much more serious than those in our own communities, and it is often even easier
to help. For example, when children are dying from curable diseases in African
countries, governments and individuals in richer countries can save lives simply
by paying for vaccines that already exist. A small donation to an international
charity might have a much greater impact than helping in our local area.
In conclusion, it is true that we cannot help everyone, but in my opinion national
boundaries should not stop us from helping those who are in need.

Agree Disagree 11
 15. In recent years, there has been growing interest in the relationship between
equality and personal achievement. Some people believe that individuals can
achieve more in egalitarian societies. Others believe that high levels of personal
achievement are possible only if individuals are free to succeed or fail
according to their individual merits.What is your view of the relationship
between equality and personal success?
In my opinion, an egalitarian society is one in which everyone has the same rights
and the same opportunities. I completely agree that people can achieve more in
this kind of society.
Education is an important factor with regard to personal success in life. I believe
that all children should have access to free schooling, and higher education
should be either free or affordable for all those who chose to pursue a university
degree. In a society without free schooling or affordable higher education, only
children and young adults from wealthier families would have access to the best
learning opportunities, and they would therefore be better prepared for the job
market. This kind of inequality would ensure the success of some but harm the
prospects of others.
I would argue that equal rights and opportunities are not in conflict with people’s
freedom to succeed or fail. In other words, equality does not mean that people
lose their motivation to succeed, or that they are not allowed to fail. On the
contrary, I believe that most people would feel more motivated to work hard and
reach their potential if they thought that they lived in a fair society. Those who did
not make the same effort would know that they had wasted their opportunity.
Inequality, on the other hand, would be more likely to demotivate people because
they would know that the odds of success were stacked in favour of those from
privileged backgrounds.
In conclusion, it seems to me that there is a positive relationship between equality
and personal success.

16. Universities should accept equal numbers of male and female students in
every subject. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In my opinion, men and women should have the same educational opportunities.
However, I do not agree with the idea of accepting equal proportions of each
gender in every university subject.

Agree Disagree 12
 Having the same number of men and women on all degree courses is simply
unrealistic. Student numbers on any course depend on the applications that the
institution receives. If a university decided to fill courses with equal numbers of
males and females, it would need enough applicants of each gender. In reality,
many courses are more popular with one gender than the other, and it would not
be practical to aim for equal proportions. For example, nursing courses tend to
attract more female applicants, and it would be difficult to fill these courses if fifty
per cent of the places needed to go to males.

Apart from the practical concerns expressed above, I also believe that it would be
unfair to base admission to university courses on gender. Universities should
continue to select the best candidates for each course according to their
qualifications. In this way, both men and women have the same opportunities, and
applicants know that they will be successful if they work hard to achieve good
grades at school. If a female student is the best candidate for a place on a course,
it is surely wrong to reject her in favour of a male student with lower grades or
fewer qualifications.
In conclusion, the selection of university students should be based on merit, and it
would be both impractical and unfair to change to a selection procedure based on
gender.

Agree Disagree 13