英语雅思作文（通用21篇）

在平凡的学习、工作、生活中，大家都经常看到作文的身影吧，写作文可以锻炼我们的独处习惯，让自己的'心静下来，思考自己未来的方向。怎么写作文才能避免踩雷呢？以下是小编为大家收集的英语雅思作文（通用21篇），欢迎阅读，希望大家能够喜欢。

Globalization is a declarationof war upon all other cultures. And in culture wars, there is no exemption of civilians, there are no innocent bystanders. Why should it be expected that ancient and rooted civilizations are going to accept this peripheralisationwithout a struggle? The answer to that is that globalization carries an implicit promise that it will relieve poverty and offer security-perhaps the most ancient of human dreams. Because of the power of global capitalism to create wealth, it is assumed that this priority must sweep aside all other human preoccupations, including all existing institutions, interpretations and searches for meaning in the world.

It is disingenuous to assume that economy, society and culture operate in separate spheres. This suggests that, one, exposed to the globalizing imperative, no aspect of social life, customary practice, traditionalbehaviour will remain the same.

There have been, broadly, two principal responses in the world, which we may call the fatalistic and the resistant. It is significant that among the most fatalistic have been the leaders of G-7, Ex-President Clinton said globalization is a fact not a policy choice Tony Blair said it is inevitable and irreversible. It may be considered paradoxical that the leaders of the most dynamic and expanding economies in the world offer such a passive, unchallenging view of what are, after all, human-made arrangements. These are among the richest and most proactive regimes, which can wage endless war on the great abstraction, that is terror, topple regimes and lay down one WTO law for the poor and another for themselves. Is their helplessness in the presence of these mighty economic and cultural powers?

There are two aspects to resistance. One is the reassertion of local identities-even if local actually means spread over very large parts of the world. The reclaiming of the local is often focused in the field of culture-music, songs and dance. This suggests an attempt to guaranteeit from the effects of economic integration; a kind of cordon sanitaria set up around a dwindling culture. Some people believe it is possible to get the best of both world-they accept the economic advantages of globalization and seek to maintain something of great value-language, tradition and custom. This is the relatively response. The other has become only too familiar: the violent reaction, the hatred of both economic and cultural globalization which may not merely perceive, but feel in the very core of their cognition, as an inseparable violation of identity. The resentment of many Muslims toward the U.S and Israel, the defensiveposturing of Vindu fundamentalism, opposed both to Islam and Christianity, are the most vivid dramatizationsof this.

University graduates receive higher salaries than those who have a lower education. Therefore, some people say such students should pay for all their tuition fees. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

You should use your own ideas of knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.

Some people assert that government should be responsible for the full tuition of college students because they are the cream of society and contribute much to the society. This argument is true to some degree. Nevertheless, there are more reasons why university students should support themselves for the full tuition of their tertiary education.

First of all, it can ensure the quality of college education. Compared with the elementary and secondary education, the college education is operating in a quite different system, which covers a great variety of researching fields and involves numerous distinguished professors and projects. In other words, it needs a great sum of money. If this complicated system is supported by the nation without much income from the beneficiaries (the college students), it will exert very heavy pressure on the country’s economy. If the government is unable to invest enough money on university education because of the limited budget, the quality of education will be undermined.

In the second place, it is a quite fair practice. Most of the countries in the world are supporting the elementary and secondary education, which is reasonable since the citizens should be encouraged to receive basic education and which is advantageous for the development of the nation. However, it is unnecessary that all the citizens go to colleges. Some high school leavers give up their further study because they have their own life aim. That is to say, going to university is a totally personal choice. Therefore it is not unreasonable that the people who make such choice pay for it.

From the above views, I hold the opinion that college students should pay for the full tuition, which can both guarantee the quality of higher education and be a reasonable practice. (291 words)

Everyone complains about taxes, yet think about what would happen if there were no longer an income tax. In a 250-word essay, discuss the positive effects of an income tax, the negative effects, or both.

It hurts to look at a paycheck and see how much of it was taken out for income tax. That money could have paid some important bills. It is easy to dream of doing away with the income tax and keeping all that money for ourselves.

If there were no income tax, however, the government would have a lot less to spend. The money we send to Washington seems to fall into a black hole and disappear. Actually, though, many people depend on it. The money pays the salaries of government employees, who provide services from drug control to highway building. It supports our military defense. Also, much of the money is returned to people in the form. of student loans, veterans' benefits, and payments to farmers, for example. The government has been working to cut its budget lately. With every cut, someone complains loudly.

So if the income tax were eliminated, other taxes would have to make up for it. Paying those other taxes would also hurt. Sales taxes fall most heavily on poor people. Taxes on manufacturers only result in higher prices to consumers.

Income taxes are not fun to pay. But doing without them would be worse. In my opinion, income taxes should be made as fair as possible. Then we each must "bite the bullet" and do our share.

One’s materialistic happiness is dependant on one’s economic success, though not completely. Without a strong and steady economic background, one could never imagine an easy and simple life, let alone an affluent and luxurious one. If you aren’t able to afford a house, a car, or even a book, anybody would be horrified at the mere mention of this kind of life. Definitely, some people will feel happy right away if their basic demands for life are satisfied. However, we have to admit that these people still need to be successful materialistically to some degree.

On the other hand, one’s success in economy may not necessarily lead to one’s spiritual happiness. As we all know, money doesn’t get you everything and some even say that money is the root of all evils. One’s financial success may be built on the sacrifice of time, health and love, which are the three most essential elements of spiritual happiness. All of us are not new to this picture: a successful business man tasting loneliness alone with a broken heart.

In my point of view, one’s economic success is only one of the key factors of happiness, but never the only one. To be happy, one needs to be both spiritually and materially satisfied though each of us may have a totally different picture of happiness.

Task:Art classes, like painting and drawing, are not as important as other subjects, so some people think that it should not be a compulsory subject at high school. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Sample answer:

Schools are places where students acquire knowledge and skills needed for further achievements. Given the pressure that students are facing, some cannot help wondering whether art classes should still be compulsory.

Those holding the view that art classes should not be compulsory might think that art consumes too much of students' time. Fierce competitions students will face When applying for universities necessitate total devotion to academic subjects. College students who intend to take science as their major are even expected to be fluent in foreign languages now so that essays written by foreign scholars are not barriers in their academic pursuit. In other words, high school students are supposed to show higher levels of academic competence,which seemingly makes art unessential.

However, art classes are by no means only intended for entertainment. Children even dabbling in art tend to be more creative in mind. Those skilled in music or painting can interpret the world in a way that we cannot expect from a layman. This kind of ingenuity is also a rare quality constantly found in great scientists, whose contributions have served to create a totally new field for the latter generations. In his reply to a question about death, Albert Einstein considered his departure from the mortal world to be forever farewell to another great musician. With a sigh he answered "I cannot listen to Mozart anymore". Thus, can we simply regard art classes to be selective?

In conclusion, although stricter academic requirements are imposed on students, this cannot be an excuse for excluding art subjects from their curricula. Whatever kind of art can stimulate and inspire students, paving way for their future academic attainment.

As a result of constant media attention, sports professionals in my country have become stars and celebrities, and those at the top are paid huge salaries. Just like movie stars, they live extravagantlifestyles with huge houses and cars.

Many people find their rewards unfair, especially when comparing these super salaries with those of top surgeons or research scientists, or even leading politicians who have the responsibilityof governing the country. However, sports salaries are not determined by considering the contribution to society a person makes, or the level of responsibility he or she holds. Instead, they reflect the public popularity of sport in general and the level of public support that successful stars can generate. So the notion of ‘fairness’ is not the issue.

Those who feel that sports stars’ salaries are justified might argue that the number of professionals with real talent are very few, and the money is a recognition of the skills and dedication a person needs to be successful. Competition is constant and a player is tested every time they perform. in their relatively short career. The pressure from the media is intense and there is little privacy out of the spotlight. So all of thesefactors may justify the huge earnings.

Personally, I think that the amount of money such sports stars make is more justified than the huge earnings of movie stars, but at the same time, it indicatesthat our society places more value on sport than on more essential professions and achievements.

History is more than the old stories, myths, or an academic subject for the scholars to write papers or books. Like many other sciences, history not only tells people what have happened before but also functions as a compass to lead human beings in the right course.

One of the most important roles that the study of history plays in solving the current human affairs is that it functions as a “rearview mirror”. It shows what is behind you so that you can move forward easily. History is, in essence, the people and their activities, both physical and psychological, in the past. If we accept that the past and the present are not entirely separated, then we have to admit the value of history. Our ancestors have suffered the same troubles, such as disease, disaster, or devil, as what we are confronted with, and their experiences, knowledge, and understanding of nature provide us with invaluable wisdom.

It is true that a fewer people claim that history helps people little in unlocking the current problems. They might give a long list of assumed “evidence”. For instance, they say that environmental issues are new, globalization unprecedented, political or economical conflicts fresh, and the like. Nevertheless, they have failed to see that in essence these problems are what our forefathers have experienced. Today people are suffering the same old trouble of poverty, wars, and mental crisis.

Therefore, reading history, at least we can find some clues to solve these problems.

Discuss the difference between fast food and traditional food, such as nutrition, and recipe?

Living in a fast-paced society, the modern eaters are not longer interested in the contents of their food, but focused on whether a convenient meal is available at hand to devour. Statistics indicate that even housewives spend much shorter time at kitchen than their predecessors. This writing will compare and contrast advantages and disadvantages of fast food and traditional food.

Traditional food has its unshakable position in the human culture both in the social and historical context. Historically, chefs have gone to all lengths to experiment on novelties, invent cooking skills to gratify guests' hunger. Hence, traditional food has secured its incomparable value with a complex of tantalising features, including the variance, flavour, and taste. Its unique charms can nurture social relations as well. A family is accustomed to prepare a traditional feast to serve their guests at weekend or on holiday, such as Christmas.

Further, traditional food is favourably nutritious and balanced, compared with fast food. Dieticians have suggested audience through millions of televised courses that traditional food can retain more nutrition before being served on the table, for in general, they are cooked with a temperate heat. By contrast, the fast food are made at such a high temperature that nutrition has inescapably vaporised during the cooking process. Meanwhile, cooks pay more attention to the balance of recipe when preparing traditional food, such as combing meat with vegetable.

Despite a range of advantages, traditional food is overshadowed by its fast compe***** in terms of time. Traditional food can consume a considerable amount of time from choosing materials, to arranging your table for visual appeal. In contrast, fast food cannot be faster when making a five-minute trip to a store around the corner, or even dialling to a fast food company. Needless to say recently, a string of fast food companies have tried their hardest to enrich the menu.

To summarise, traditional food has an irreplaceable role in our life, backed with various merits. However, its prevalence is declining for people are more and more time conscious.

The government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to decrease the violent crimes in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this issue?

Recently, the discussion about whether the government should control the amount of violence in films and on television has become a heated one. People take diverse attitudes towards this issue. Before presenting my view, I seek to analyze the issue from different angles.

From some people’s point of view, there are many good reasons for controlling the amount of violence in films and on television. First, violent films and television can do harm to young people. Because they contains numerous of erotic, corrupt and provoking episode, which can bring negative influence to na?ve young people. Moreover, since young people are in the formative years, they are not mature enough. They always like imitating their idols, no matter right or wrong, which lead to the increasing of the juvenile delinquents. Thirdly, violence begets violence. Violent films and television can make people aggressive and cold-blooded, which enhance the violent crime in society. In a word, controlling the amount of violence in films and TV effectively can decrease the violent crimes in society and preserve social security.

Many others, however, take a quite strong opposite attitude towards this issue. They believe violent media have their positive sides, which should not be controlled by government. To begin with, there are many valuable education functions in this kind of films and TV. Because they can reflect the reality, and we can’t imagine that there aren’t any con information but only pro things in our world. Secondly, if the government control the violent films and television, it must influence the development of the entertainment industry. Last but not least, they can prepare children for the adult world and teach them to cherish life.

As far as I am concern, I strongly believe that the amount of violence in films and TV should be controlled. At the same time, we cannot deny the advantages brought by them. And the best policy is to develop the merits of the violent films and television, while grading and filtering them, describing that which are not fit for the children to watch.

The most prominent memory of my trip to Europe in 1983 was not the excitement of traveling abroad for the first time but the discomfort of flying in a smoke-filled airplane for almost six hours. Even in the non-smoking section, I was coughing and choking during the entire flight. And whenever I had to use the restroom, I had to hold my nose as I passed through the smoking area to the lavatory.

If I ruled the world, I would certainly outlaw cigarette smoking in all public places. Fortunately for smokers everywhere, I don't rule the world. Nevertheless, I fully support the idea behind the New York State legislature's recent bill to ban smoking in all restaurants in New York State.

According to the New York Times, officials in both houses of the legislature say the legislation is "very close to fruition." California is the only other state I know that has banned smoking in restaurants and bars, and despite the predictions of some restaurant owners, I haven't read any reports that restaurant attendance has fallen off significantly since the bill passed. Why should it? Food is a necessity. People need to eat.

Assigning designated smoking and non smoking areas in restaurants is not enough. Smoke travels quickly beyond the imaginary boundaries set up between tables and booths. As a patron, I should be able to enjoy my meal without choking on someone else's smoke. The same is true in bars and nightclubs, although I would exercise more legislative restraint in this setting because dancing and drinking are not as essential as eating. Still, why should I have to endanger my lungs just to go dancing?

I would ban smoking on public sidewalks and streets as well. What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business, but once you pollute the rest of the world with cancer-inducing toxic fumes, it becomes the government's business. I'm tired of asking people to put out their cigarettes or asking waiters to patrol the boundaries of their restaurant's smoking section. So if this new bill becomes law, as I hope it does, non-smokers will finally be able to enjoy their restaurant meals without having to police the artificial lines of separation that divide the two sections in restaurants.

The government should control the amount of violence in films and on elevision in order to decrease the violent crimes in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this issue?

Whether the government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to decrease the violent crimes in society involves a conflict between our right of free speech and the duty of the government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. In my view, our societal nterest in preventing the harm that exposure to violence produces takes recedence over the rights of individuals to broadcast this type of content.

First of all, I believe that exposure to violence does indeed cause similar behavior on the part of those who are exposed to it. Although we may not have conclusive scientific evidence of a cause-effect relationship, ample anecdotal evidence establishes a significant correlation. Moreover, both common sense and our experiences with children inform us that people tend to mimic the behavior they are exposed to.

Secondly, I believe that violence is indeed harmful to a society. The harm it produces is, in my view, both palpable and profound. For the individual, it has a debasing impact on vital human relationships; for the society, it promotes a tendency toward antisocial behavior. Both outcomes, in turn, tear apart the social fabric that holds a society together.

Those who advocate unbridled individual expression might point out that the right of free speech is intrinsic to a democracy and necessary to its urvival. Even so, this right is not absolute, nor is it the most critical element. In my assessment, the interests served by restricting violence in broadcast media are, on balance, more crucial to the survival of a society.

In sum, it is in our best interest as a society for the government to censor broadcast media for violence. Exposure to such media content tends to harm society and its citizenry in ways that are worth preventing, even in light of the resulting infringement of our right of free expression.

Much reading and reciting, help you remember, cultivate the habit of thinking in chinese. Hear much, much communication, which can improve the ability of listening and speaking.

You can also write a diary to improve writing skills.Learning a language, especially Chinese, mainly to learn new words is, you know the new words better. In Chinese home and things around, starting in May is not used, but this habit is good for us, not only can increase the number of new words, and can continuously review.In every class, attend the meeting or mutual communication to listen to the teacher carefully the words and grammar, to listen to the content of the conference, to listen to each other, to actively use their brains, trying to remember it, exercise and improve memory, strive to learn new things.Patience and perseverance, to learn every day.

Some people think that university should not provide theoretical knowledge, but to give practical training that is beneficial to society.

Do you agree or disagree?

The current hot issues concerning higher education include the one of whether university should provide theoretical knowledge or practical training. In my opinion, this issue is closely related to the different aims of different universities and the needs of the economic development of the respective country.

As we know, university education gives a student a better appreciation of such fields as art, literature, history, science, and human relations. Therefore, it is necessary for the university to provide theoretical knowledge for those students who intend to receive liberal education.

Most universities also have professional colleges that prepare students for careers, such as teachers colleges, agricultural or dental colleges. These colleges, apart from offering some liberal arts courses, usually allocate a certain period of time for professional training. For example, a student at teachers college usually takes a field training at a high school as a student teacher for two or three months.

Another important factor on this issue is the needs of the economic development of a respective county. For instance, in China, a great number of advanced professional personnel are needed to keep the pace with the rapid economic development. Therefore, cooperative education that combines classroom studies with practical work experience is more appropriate an education China needs at the present time.

In a word, how much emphasis that should be laid on theoretical knowledge or practical training is determined by the needs of the economy of a respective country and the needs of all-round personnel for a democratic society.

What are the causes for losing varieties in languages and cultures?

Every human society has a culture that includes arts, customs, language, etc. Every culture changes and the main causes for losing varieties in language and culture, in my opinion, are: contact with other cultures, and development of science and technology.

When two cultures have continuous contact with each other, the two cultures may blend or adopt their cultural traits, such as language, clothing, etc. thus losing their individual cultural varieties. When people of one culture who move to a country where another culture dominates may give up their old ways and become part of the dominant culture. For example, groups of people from many countries have settled in the United States. Most of these people gradually abandoned the way of life of their homeland, and adopted an American way of life. They learned the language, adopted the customs, and followed the traditions.

The development of science and technology, on the other hand, may attribute to changes in a culture. The invention of steam engine, for example, produced great changes in the way people lived. The invention of the computer in the mid 20th century has also had enormous impact. It has brought far-reaching changes in communication, education, entertainment, and numerous other areas of modern life.

In conclusion, to lose varieties in language and culture is to lose richness in them. Therefore, to my mind, multiculturalism should prevail in the contemporary world, so that ethnic groups can bring variety and richness to a society by introducing their own ideas and customs.

The two bar charts not only show the number of marriages and divorces in the USA between 1970 and 2000, but also illustrate the marital status of the Americans.

According to the first bar chart, within the thirty years, the number of marriages was always larger than that of divorces. From 1970 to 1980, the number of marriages remained unchanged . But 1990 saw a decline. In the following decade, the trend continued, dropping to the nadir of 2 million. Noticeably, the highest divorce rate was in 1980, when about 1.4 million divorces attracted the attention. In comparison, 1970 witnessed only 1 million, equal to that in 2000. By contrast, 1990 saw 1.2million.

The second bar chart indicates that in 1970 about 70% Americans married, but in 2000 the figure was 59%. The percentage of divorced and never married increased from 3% to 7% and 12% to 20% respectively.

In sum, the marital status from 1970 to 2000 were complex.

This line chart shows the changes in the proportion of the elderly people in three countries from 1940 till today. Moreover, it offers predictions for a period to 2040.

During the three score years, the USA generally outweighed Sweden in terms of the proportion of those aged 65 and over. But the gaps between have never been remarkable. In stark contrast, Sweden strikingly eclipsed Japan in this aspect evidenced by the fact that in 1940 the proportion for the USA was about 9%, clearly higher than 5% for Japan.

Whereas Japan experienced declines from 5% to 3% , both Sweden and the USA climbed. Put it in detail, by the year 1983, the figures have peaked at 15% and 13% in the USA and Sweden respectively. Noticeably, in 1997 the proportion in the USA was equal to that in Sweden.

According to the forecast, from now on, all of the three countries will skyrocket although exceptions might happen. However, by 2040 the proportion will have peaked at 27%, 25%, and 23% in Japan, Sweden, and the USA respectively.

In sum, the three countries are different in the field under study.

It is inevitable that traditional cultures will be lost as technology develops. Technology and traditional cultures are incompatible. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?

9分范文:

Some people believe that technological developments lead to the loss of traditional cultures. I partly agree with this assertion; while it may be true in the case of some societies, others seem to be unaffected by technology and the modern world.

On the one hand, the advances in technology that have driven industrialisation in developed countries have certainly contributed to the disappearance of traditional ways of life. For example, in pre-industrial Britain, generations of families grew up in the same small village communities. These communities had a strong sense of identity, due to their shared customs and beliefs. However, developments in transport, communications and manufacturing led to the dispersal of families and village communities as people moved to the cities in search of work. Nowadays most British villages are inhabited by commuters, many of whom do not know their closest neighbours.

On the other hand, in some parts of the world traditional cultures still thrive. There are tribes in the Amazon Rainforest, for example, that have been completely untouched by the technological developments of the developed world. These tribal communities continue to hunt and gather food from the forest, and traditional skills are passed on to children by parents and elders. Other traditional cultures, such as farming communities in parts of Africa, are embracing communications technologies. Mobile phones give farmers access to information, from weather predictions to market prices, which helps them to prosper and therefore supports their culture.

In conclusion, many traditional ways of life have been lost as a result of advances in technology, but other traditional communities have survived and even flourished.

Some feel that the children of low income families are better equipped to deal with difficulties posed by the “real world” when they grow up and they also believe the privileged children of wealthy families are less fit to deal with these difficulties.The implications and veracity of this argument seem self-evident,but in fact require closer examination.

The popular wisdom is that children of poorer families learn early on the value of a buck ,and are thus naturally better suited to stretching money when times get tough in adulthood. Inversely, the children of wealthy families,thoseborn with a silver spoon in their mouths,are believed to be completely ignorant of the tentimes erroneously expecting the same situation in adulthood.They are believed to be prone to overspending and financial irresponsibility. This belief,though logical,overlooks one key point which is,of course,education.

The basis of this argument is,of course,knowing the value of money ,and the idea that children of the poor know this,and those of the wealthy do not.Who though,is in a better position to teach their children the value of money,someone skilled in earning and keeping it,the wealthy parent,or someone who can not seem to acquire it,the poor parent? Both wealthy and poor children are equally likely to acquire an education in money,whether it is formal,or in the school of hard knocks. Conversely, both children are as likely to ignore this education.

A poor child may believe that one can get along,if not as easily,without wealthy.A wealthy child may be well trained by a parent steeped in the knowledge of money management,the key to developing this skill is education.

The 21st century has begun.

What changes do you think this new century will bring?

Model Answer:

Man, through the ages, has undergone many changes from the time when he depicted a herd of mammoths on the walls of his cave to these days when he can create beautiful pictures and even make coffee by use of computer technologies without leaving his favorite chair. The 20th century made huge steps in developing computer technologies and reached many goals that made our life much easier. What should we expect in the 21st century?

First of all, I think that the pace of our life will speed up: we will move faster from one place to another, from one continent to another using high speed jet airplanes. Second of all, I believe that we will be able to do many things that take much time now without leaving our house. Computers will be everywhere including out clothes. Many people will have chips and mini computers ed in their heads to hold huge amount of information and have a quick access to it.

But what will be the most amazing thing in the 21st century is the flights to the outer space and Mars that will be available to all people. Scientists say that Mars has many things similar to the Earth's. Moreover, they say that with the help of modern technology people can artificially create conditions that will allow people to live there on the constant basis.

To sum up, I am sure that many amazing changes will be brought by the 21st century. Furthermore, I think that with the help of the contemporary technologies people can do many things that were even difficult to imagine a century ago. So, nowadays it is rather difficult and even impossible to imagine all changes that will happen in the next decades.

There are many good reasons to cycle. Cycling is the most efficient means of getting around London. Many journeys we make are shorter than two miles or less and these are usually faster on a cycle than travelling by car, bus, tube, train or taxi..Not only is cycling good for you, it is also fun and available to all. It is a chance to get out of the house or workplace, to be active and to be sociable. Getting a bike neednt be expensive and upkeep is low cost and easy. )

Save money

Using a bike to replace your regular form of transport is a great way to save money. Its well documented that cycling is the best value way to travel around London . Compared to cars, bicycles are much cheaper to buy and maintain, and you dont have all the added costs of fuel, Vehicle Excise Duty and parking.

Save time

For a typical London journey, cycling is faster than the car, public transport, taxis or walking. Remember that cycling is a door to door service. On a bicycle you can easily cover five miles in half an hour and be confident that youll arrive on time. Car or bus journeys take longer and depend on traffic, or irregular bus services. For longer trips, you can combine bike and public transport: leaving your bike at the station or sometimes taking it on the train/tube at off-peak times. See the LCC information booklet Transporting Your Bicycle for further information.

Poverty reduction is again a hot topic worldwide when the economic crisis hits the poorest counties hardest. While more attention drawn to this issue, some problems emerge with people’s opinions divided. Many people believe countries have a moral obligation to help each other, whilst others argue that aid money is, more often than not, misspent by the recipients, so foreign aids, as a well-intended mechanism, simply failed and need to be scrapped.

As a more widely shared knowledge than ever, poverty in the third world is an inevitable cause of all the chaos afflicting the world, from crimes, regional confrontations to terrorism, even pandemics. On this more and more globalized world, a nation could no longer be exempt from the unstableness and misery suffered by its neighbouring countries. Even the cry from the faraway end of the globe will be brought to your ears through all the links and ties. It is, therefore, a consensus among both the rich and the poor that only when poverty is eliminated once and for all, can peace and prosperity be attained and sustained. To this common end, the only possible way is to engage rich countries in helping poor ones generously and unconditionally.

Sure enough, there are some high-profile scandals of fund misuse. It’s also true foreign aid did foster corruption and irresponsible policymaking in some countries. Yet, this should not serve as the excuse of withdrawing these most needed aids which are supposed to and also proved to save lives and deliver hopes. A loose governance or corruptive government cannot cancel off the desperate needs of its people. On the other hand, there are some effective measures can be taken to avoid, at least to some extent, such undesirable situations, for instance, strengthening the supervision of fund disbursement, delivering aids through the network of non-governmental organizations, or helping to promote recipient counties’ governance and management.

In other words, the abuses involved with foreign aids can be checked through other available means rather than just abandoning the whole package altogether. As I mentioned above, there is hardly any way more effective than international aids in fighting world hunger and its tragic consequences. On no accounts would we give up on our shared dream of creating a planet free from tears and bleeding. So let’s work together to hold the rich countries accountable in this tough battle.

I am from Saint-Petersburg, Russia. I believe that building a large factory near my community has advantages as well as disadvantages. In the following paragraphs I will list basic benefits and losses that will be brought by a new factory.

For several reasons, I think that a new factory will not be a good addition to my neighborhood. First of all, factories often bring pollution. They are prone to contaminating the local air and water. Second of all, factories make noise. Another important aspect of building a new factory near by is that it will make the local traffic heavy. As a result of this, the amount of traffic congestions will increase, as well as contamination of the air. So, all these obviously will not make one's life happier and healthier in my community.

From the other side, I believe that a new factory will bring some advantages to my community. First of all, it will bring new job opportunities. Many specialists will be required to work there. Second of all, I think many local community facilities will have to be renovated to obtain reliable supply of water and electricity. So, some old pipes may be changed. Another important benefit of this is that the local roads in order to manage the increasing traffic will be rebuilt and widened.

However, I do not think that listed above benefits are worth all these troubles including water contamination and the constant pollution of air. From my point of view all factories must be built far from the people communities because they can be really harmful for people's health.