TOPIC: People in big cities prefer to live alone or in small family units instead of large family groups. Do you think this is positive or negative trend?

It is true that urban citizens now tend to live individually or in nuclear families. Personally, I believe that this trend has many positive impacts on our lives, and thus should be advocated.

Living alone will give people freedom to do what they want without annoying other family members. In the modern world, the gaps between generations are gradually widening, so it would be a bad idea for several generations to live in the same house. For example, while the young prefer eating fast food for their convenience, their parents and grandparents would like the whole family to have traditional meals together. When it comes to entertaining demands, youngsters are apt to listen to various types of modern music, ranging from pop to rock, which can cause some disturbances to their elder family members.

Furthermore, living in nuclear families offers great benefits to all family members. Firstly, parents have more time to care for the family and thus better raise their children. For example, instead of spending time caring for a large family that is full of potential conflicts between family members, parents can focus on teaching children how to behave properly, or encouraging them to study. Secondly, fewer members means less household expenditure, and this will relieve some financial burdens on working adults. Then, money can be used to spend on better nutrition and facilities which can lead to a higher standard of living.

In conclusion, I firmly hold the view that living individually or in small family units has many benefits for all family members.

(257 words) 

TOPIC: Some people say that government should control tightly the use of freshwater. Other say that individuals should use as much as they want. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

TOPIC: As a part of education, students should spend a period of time living in another country to learn its language and culture. Do you agree or disagree?

Sample:

It is argued that students should experience overseas life to learn the language and culture of the host country. Personally, I would completely agree with this for the following reasons.

To begin with, living in a foreign nation is always advantageous to experience a different culture even for a short period of time. One day abroad is one day learnt. Hence, students living abroad usually have better and more thorough understanding of the outside world than those students who do not have these experiences; they also tend to have more open minds to differences in culture and so become more tolerant to other groups of people. Compared to those who learn the cultural values of foreign countries from books and media, students who have overseas living experience can have a broader perspective of the world we live in.

Furthermore, having first-hand exposure to the local language is the best way to learn it. The truth is, no matter how much students excel in foreign language courses, they do not usually master the language completely. For example, there are never enough English native speakers in schools to provide a real English speaking community, which may result in students knowing English very well in terms of grammar or reading, but speaking and dialogue comprehension is a big obstacle for them. In contrast, living in the foreign environment gradually improves the learner’s accent in speaking and allows them to learn collocations that native speakers normally use in daily conversations.

In conclusion, I firmly hold the view that living in another country for education purposes is advantageous both culture-wise and language-wise.

(267 words)

Women and man are commonly seen as having different strengths and weaknesses

Women and man are commonly seen as having different strengths and weaknesses. Is it right to exclude males or females from certain professions because of their gender?

Model answer:

There have always been differences in the types of work men and women have done. However. the trend in modern times has been for both men and women to have greater freedom of choice in terms of employment. Some people might say that there is no need to go further. However. in my view, wherever possible, gender equality should be encouraged. 

There may indeed be good arguments for allowing certain posts to remain predominantly male or female. 
Where all-male or all-female groups exist, there may be a need for related posts to be held by men and women respectively. Patients in all-female hospital wards, for example. would probably appreciate having female nurses to look after them. It could also be argued that certain jobs requiring a great deal of physical strength, coal mining or loggingI for example. should continue to be done mainly by men. 

However, in the vast majority of situations, making occupations more open to both genders has distinct 
advantages. Men and women can bring slightty different perspectives and approaches to a job. Female police officers, for example. may have a greater understanding of domestic violence and a better range of strategies for dealing with this problem. Male primary school teachers probably have a better understanding ofthe needs of young boys and can serve as good role models for them. 

The changes that result from allowing men into female-dominated occupations and vice versa may be subtle. 
but they are far-reaching. However, to benefit the most from this development, it is important not to expect 
males and fernates to appmach work in identical ways.

New technologies and ways of buying and selling are transforming to the lives of consumers

New technologies and ways of buying and selling are transforming to the lives of consumers. To what extend do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

My essay:

     The internet has undoubtedly changed the way people shop. In some countries, buying and selling products online has become commonplace. Enthusiasts claim that the internet offers consumers greater choice and flexibility. However, those who say that the internet is transforming the lives of consumers are going too far.

     Firstly, although online shopping appears to offer greater convenience, it is often rather risky and cumbersome in practice. Consumers can not evaluate the quality of online products by handing them directly. Instead, they must rely on sellers to describe goods accurately in word and/or pictures. Mistakes can easily be made, leading to the inconvenience of having to exchange goods or seek a refund. Products bought online also normally need to be delivered by post. The convenience of online shopping thus hinges in part on the efficiency of the postal service.

     Secondly, in spite of the promise of lower prices, internet shopping seldom offers substantial savings. A competitive marketplace ensures that large price differentials rapidly disappear as suppliers align themselves with one another. Also, the cost of postage is normally borne by the buyer. A product that appears to be a bargain on screen often turns out to be no cheaper than the same product bought in a shop. Not surprisingly, only one in ten purchases in the UK are made online.

     For these reasons, internet shopping is likely to remain a minority pursuit. The continuing popularity of shopping in the traditional way suggests that consumers continue to value its advantages: the opportunity to sample, compare and buy products in a real as opposed to a virtual space. 

Sample ielts writing #7