Đề IELTS Writing Task 2 ngày 22-05-2021
The use of mobile phones should be banned in public places like libraries and shops. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
People often take different views about whether the prohibition of mobile phones in public places is a good idea or not. Some people believe that the policy of banning cell phones should be put into effect as soon as possible. While I partly agree with this point of view, I also believe that the use of these devices in certain public areas is still necessary.
On the one hand, the proscription of mobile phones in public places would prevent disturbances they often trigger off for people around them. The noise of mobile users communicating with others or listening to music may be bothersome for those who are concentrating on their work commitments or studies. For example, in libraries where most people come to read books, repeated ringtones could interrupt readers’ train of thought and cause them not want to visit the library next time. In addition, using cell phones in churches and other places of worship shows a lack of attention to the sermon and disrespect for the priest who leads the ceremony. It is meaningless to attend a religious ceremony, but keep checking inboxes, surfing the Internet and ignore valuable commandments. Therefore, it is important to prohibit the use of cell phones in these places.
However, in many other public places, the permission to utilize mobile phones is more reasonable and favoured by users. Undoubtedly, smartphones enable humans to complete many tasks more rapidly and effectively. For example, when shopping in a supermarket or convenient store, costumers could use their phones to trace the origion of the products they want to purchase thanks to bar code scanning. Similarly, in emergencies like the hospitalisation of a close relation, mobile phones have a vital role role to play in informimg receivers of the bad news immediately. As a consequence, the prohibition of cell phones in these public places could arouse public opposition.
In conclusion, although the limitation of mobile phone use in some situations would reduce their interference, it is also my opinion that policy makers have to be selective before enforcing such a law.
Đề IELTS Writing Task 2 ngày 22-05-2021
Restoration of old buildings in main cities involves enormous government expenditure. It would be more beneficial to spend this money to build new houses and roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Today there are plenty of opposing opinions as to whether governments should dedicate a considerable part of their budget to reinstating run-down buildings or not. It is claimed that public purse should be expended on the construction of new and safer buildings. While I agree with this point of view to some extent, I also believe that the reconditioning of certain dilapidated buildings is necessary.
On the one hand, I claim that most buildings which were constructed ages ago could pose a threat to residents living inside or nearby. These buildings are highly vulnerable to extreme weather conditions such as a hurricane or minor earthquake. In other words, they can trigger regrettable loss of life and property when abruptly collapsing. In addition, most ancient buildings are of little economic value and often derelict due to being uninhabitable to dwellers. Nowadays, people prefer to live in modern and fully equipped houses rather than in a tilted and rickety apartment block. From an economic perspective, restoration is actually a waste of resources, especially if that building is located in a city center where profitability of the property is always the top priority. As a consequence, it is my view that governments should spend this money to construct more fortified and economically valuable ones.
However, some ancient buildings should be preserved due to their cultural and historical values. Historic buildings which have existed throughout different periods of history might be symbolic of a city or country. The collapse of such architectural works will inflict damage on local cultural heritage and in many cases deprive locals of a substantial source of tourist income. Therefore, it is understandable that many people oppose widespread destruction and and call for the preservation of these age-old buildings.
In conclusion, although we should restore historically significant old buildings constructed by previous generations, I believe that overly run-down and culturally or economically worthless buildings have to be superseded by new ones for safety if they are situated near residential areas.
- reinstate = restore = recondition (t) khôi phục
- public purse (u) quốc khố, ngân sách công
- dilapidated = run-down (adj) đổ nát
- vulnerable (adj) dễ bị tác động, tổn thương
- extreme weather condition (c) điều kiện thời tiết cực đoan
- hurricane (c) cơn bão lốc
- regrettable = unfortunate (adj) đáng tiếc
- abruptly = suddenly (adv) bất chợt
- derelict (adj) bỏ hoang, vô chủ
- uninhabitable (adj) không ở được
- dweller (c) người sống, cư dân
- tilted (adj) xiêu vẹo
- rickety (adj) ọp ẹp
- from an economic perspective: nhìn từ góc độ kinh tế
- profitability (u) khả năng sinh lời
- property (c/u) tài sản, nhà cửa
- fortified (adj) được gia cố vững chắc
- preserve (t) giữ gìn, bảo tồn
- symbolic (adj) mang tính biểu tượng
- architectural work (c) công trình kiến trúc
- to inflict damage on: gây hại cho
- cultural heritage (u) di sản văn hóa
- deprive = take away (t) lấy đi, tước đi
- substantial (adj) considerable: đáng kể
- widespread destruction (u) sự phá hủy trên diện rộng
- be historically significant: quan trọng về lịch sử
- be culturally or economically worthless: không có giá trị về văn hóa hay kinh tế
- supersede = replace = displace (t) thay thế
- situate = locate (t) đặt vị trí (ở đâu đó)
- residential area (c) khu dân dư
Đề IELTS Writing 2 ngày 09-01-2021
Task 2: Some people think that hosting an international sports event is good for the country, while some people think it is bad. Discuss both views and state your opinion.
There are plenty of opposing opinions as to whether a country should host an international sports event or not. It is claimed that the cost of organising these events is exorbitant and the state's butget should be diverted into other more significant fields like education or scientific research. However, I personally believe that they play a prominent role in establishing reputation of that country on the world satge.
On the negative side, hosting a global athletic competition requires a country to devote a great part of the public purse to the construction of infrastructure catering to a huge number of athletes and spectators. Those countries, especially in underdeveloped areas like in Africa or Southeast Asia, probably have to sacrifice the budget for important spheres which contribute more to the national development than sports does. For example, to qualify for an organiser of a world football tournament like World Cup or Olympics, the host nation has to have sufficient stadiums and facilities, most of which would be constructed. The decision to organise these events could make a country's government run the risk of high public debt and the economy stagnate.
Nevertheless, it is my viewpoint that major sports events are a rare opportuniry for a country to broadcast their culture and image to the rest of the world, which is a prerequisite for the development of many economic sectors of that nation. International sporting events always grab the attention of viewers all over the world, who are likely to become interested in and make a decision to travel to the host country afterwards if they notice that the destination has incredible landscapes and that the local inhabitants are welcoming and approachable, or to make investments in that nation because they recognize the economic potential of the area. Such activities may give a boost to the economic growth of a country when it would probably receive an influx of visitors and capital from abroad. All of these reasons explain why so many candidates are competing with each other for the organisation of global sports events.
Although countries should consider thoroughly whether their current situation is appropriate for an international sporting event or not, I still take the view that seizing such a chance is well-advised.