0% Complete
0/21 Steps


Some people say that it is possible for a county to be both economically successful and have a clean environment. Others disagree. Discuss both view and give your opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

The strength of any nation does not come without costs, one of which is upon the local environment whose resources fuel each and every sector of the economy. And yet many people believe that a strong economy and a clean environment can co-exist. I do not entirely deny this belief; however, I find myself more convinced of the fact that we cannot have them both.

For years, scientists have developed ways to replace traditional sources of exploitation in many fields, like electricity and fuel. The use of alternative renewable energy from sunlight, wind and geothermal heat, have been applied in many areas, which helps to keep the environment away from harm. In addition, many environmental activists say that it is certainly within our reach to minimize the damage caused by industrial activities and protect Mother Earth. Many have even succeeded in convincing governments to take action in such regard.

Nevertheless, we should not forget that there are things that make it impossible to relieve our dependency on natural resources. For example, the automobile, mining and steel industry, are without doubt taking a heavy toll on the environment on account of carbon emissions and chemical waste. But those prove to be indispensable and irreplaceable to the progress of many economies. Furthermore, tremendous damage has already been done, and many people fear that the environment’s state of cleanliness cannot be restored. Take Beijing as an example. Air quality there is the worst in the world, with thick layers of smog covering the atmosphere.

In conclusion, my firm conviction is that no matter how hard we try to preserve the environment, while we continue to exploit its natural resources for the sake of the economy, we will never have both of them at the same time.

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

Many governments think that economic progress is their most important goal. Some people, however, think that other types of progress are equally important for a country. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

People have different views about how governments should measure their countries’ progress. While economic progress is of course essential, I agree with those who believe that other measures of progress are just as important.

There are three key reasons why economic growth is seen as a fundamental goal for countries. Firstly, a healthy economy results in job creation, a high level of employment, and better salaries for all citizens. Secondly, economic progress ensures that more money is available for governments to spend on infrastructure and public services. For example, a government with higher revenues can invest in the country’s transport network, its education system and its hospitals. Finally, a strong economy can help a country’s standing on the global stage, in terms of its political influence and trading power.

However, I would argue that various other forms of progress are just as significant as the economic factors mentioned above. In particular, we should consider the area of social justice, human rights, equality and democracy itself. For example, the treatment of minority groups is often seen as a reflection of the moral standards and level of development of a society. Perhaps another key consideration when judging the progress of a modern country should be how well that country protects the natural environment, and whether it is moving towards environmental sustainability. Alternatively, the success of a nation could be measured by looking at the health, well-being and happiness of its residents.

In conclusion, the economy is obviously a key marker of a country’s success, but social, environmental and health criteria are equally significant.

Some people say that economic growth is the only way to end hunger and poverty, while others say that economic growth is damaging the environment so it should be stopped. Discuss both views and give your opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Many people believe economic development is the only solution to end hunger and poverty, while others think that economic growth should be stopped due to the harmful effects it has on the environment. In this essay, I will examine both arguments and then give my personal opinion.

It is true that economic growth has taken a heavy toll on the environment. Firstly, the ever increasing demand for industrial development has led to the construction of more factories and manufacturing facilities, which has significantly raised the volume of atmospheric greenhouse gases, which are considered to be the main culprit behind global warming. Furthermore, human activities, such as clearing forests for farming, are directly responsible for the loss of natural habitats for many wild plants and animals, pushing these species to the verge of extinction. This, together with the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, poses serious threats to the survival of mankind, especially with today’s rapidly increasing population.

However, trying to stop the economy from developing, due to the drawbacks, is not a rational approach, for economic growth is still the most effective measure to tackle poverty and hunger. A healthy economy will create more employment opportunities for those who come from underprivileged backgrounds, and thus ensure stable income for these people. Therefore, they will be able to earn enough money to cover basic living expenses. Besides this, economic growth also has a crucial role to play in the fight against hunger. With a more generous budget to invest in agricultural development, for example, governments can invest in modern machinery to automate the labour-intensive processes of growing and harvesting crops. Such a boost in productivity will increase food production and eventually put an end to hunger.

In conclusion, it is understandable why many people believe that economic growth should be stopped to protect our environment, however, I think the government should not rely on such a desperate measure because the benefits brought about by economic growth, not only in the fight against poverty and hunger, are far more significant than the drawbacks.

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 opinions. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Some people say that the availability of technology is widening the gap between the rich and the poor, while other people think it is closing the gap. Personally, I believe that the availability of technology has little to do with the gap between the rich and the poor.

On one hand, having access to the latest and most advanced technology could bring a number of financial benefits to people. Advancements in technology have brought about large changes in the way people work and do business, and more specifically, in the efficiency of most workplaces. Technology has enhanced the productivity of most businesses around the world, particularly in manufacturing processes, and this has consequently boosted the profits of many companies, and therefore possibly made many wealthy businessmen even richer, thereby increasing the wealth gap.

However, with an increase in the availability of many new technologies, it is also becoming more affordable for the large majority of people, which has provided more equal opportunities between people, whether rich or poor. For example, the internet has become extremely widespread throughout the world these days and has provided people of all financial status access to a great deal of information that they can use to their advantage to help them educate themselves in order to live better lives, and therefore potentially decrease the gap.

In conclusion, I do not believe that access to technology really has much impact on the gap between rich and poor people. It is education and the acquisition and application of knowledge that may affect the wealth gap between rich and poor.

error: Content is protected !!