ESSAY

Paragraph 1 introduction
Paragraph 2 point one problem + solution/ reason(s)/example(s)
Paragraph 3 point two problem + solution/ reason(s)/example(s)
Paragraph 4 point three problem + solution/ reason(s)/example(s)
Paragraph 5 conclusion (you may include your opinion here)

Do you agree that community service works better than fines?

1. effort and time

2. lesson learned
3. (your own idea)

Anyone who commits a crime should be prosecuted. Some people believe, myself included, that serving a community is
a more effective way to stop reoffending than financial penalty. So what are the benefits deriving from doing community
service?

First and foremost, offenders are being requested to spend their precious time on voluntary work. Paying a fine is
relatively unchallenging when compared to weeks or even months of labour a lawbreaker has to devote to local society
free of charge.

Additionally, community service is sometimes the only way to gain the knowledge about hazards arising from felonies.
For example, if a person has been caught speeding, an adequate service one should do is to become a lollipop man at a
local school crossing.

Finally, spending time and helping out a local society may positively influence wrongdoers. They begin to contemplate
on their behaviour and eventually come to conclusion that they are capable of making a positive difference in society.

In conclusion, creative way of punishment in a form of community service is without a doubt a more efficient way to halt
reoffending. Not only the local society benefits from it but also the lawbreaker who learns the lesson.

Is it true that we help the environment when we plant a tree?

1. clear the air

2. shade
3. .( your own idea)

It is claimed that the ecosystem of our planet is in danger. Nevertheless, there are some who advocate, myself included,
that planting trees may bring balance to the natural world. So how does growing these plants aid the living world?

First of all, trees improve the quality of air by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Using their leaves and
branches trees absorb negative gases and then release the oxygen back into the air to support living creatures.

Moreover, mature trees provide shading for houses and other buildings so that the need for air conditioning is reduced.
Although for some it might seem unimportant, this simple action decreases the amount of fossil fuels burned to produce
electricity.

Last but not least, forestation creates an ecosystem which provides habitat and food for wildlife. The tree not only serves
as shelter and protection from a predator but also enables animals to collect nuts, berries or fruit.

Having presented all the points it is obvious that the environment benefits hugely from a newly planted tree. I believe
that reduction of CO2, provision of shade, shelter or food are just a few of the advantages deriving from this simple
action.
 Is is a good thing that countries spend a lot of money on their heritage?

1. preserving the past

2. investing in the future
3. ________ (your own idea)

Most countries spend large sums of money protecting their national heritage. However, there is strong argument that we
should look forwards and not backwards, spending less money on preserving the past and more on securing our future.

On the one hand, it is important that we remember our heritage. Once it is lost, it is lost forever. Caring for important
monuments helps with this. It also attracts tourists, which has an economic benefit for everyone.

On the other hand, governments spend a lot of money on museums and keeping historic sites in good condition when
poor people need houses to live in and businesses need better roads for transporting their goods.

Another argument is that by making heritage sites attractive for tourists -for example, by putting on entertainment - we
give a very untrue picture of the past and sometimes damage the local environment.

To conclude, while there are strong arguments for not spending too much on preserving the past, I believe it is important
to protect the most famous sites for the future generations but it is not realistic to try and save everything. We need to
invest in the future too.

Science is very important in the 21st century. How do you think it could be made more appealing to
young people?

1. television programmes
2. interactive museums
3. ________ (your own idea)

Although young people love gadgets and technology, some see science as uninteresting and 'uncool'. Over time, the
number of young people, particularly girls, pursuing science and technology studies and careers has dropped.

One way in which science could be made more attractive would be to have lively television programmes presented by
celebrities, with subjects which were relevant to the experience of the young. We live in a celebrity culture and children
identify with well-known young people.

Another idea would be to set up interactive science museums in every town, where parents could take their children. It is
much better to teach children the principles of science through hands-on experiments than to lecture them in a classroom.

Of course, there would be more incentives if the average scientit were better paid and young people were made aware of
the range of jobs available. A lot of people are put off a scientific career because they think it means working in a badly
paid job in a boring laboratory.

Whichever way we choose, it is vital that more young people are attracted to science, since society's prosperity depends
largely on continuous scientific progress.

Is it better to live alone or with someone else?

1. independence
2. money
3. ________ (your own idea)

Nowadays more people are deciding to live by themselves. Some people claim this is more enjoyable and in young
people it develops a sense of responsibility, whereas others disagree.

The main advantage of living alone is that there is nobody to tell you what to do, so you can live your life in your own
way. What is more, you can organise or decorate your house as you want. There is no one else to disagree with.

On the other hand, it can be quite lonely for some people. By nature, we are social animals. Secondly, it is more
expensive because you have to pay all the rent and bills yourself, so you have less money to enjoy yourself. Last but not
least, it can be quite hard to find a nice flat for one person, so you might not be able to live in the best area.

To sum up, there are strong arguments on both sides. In conclusion, I believe that living alone is better for older people
who have more money and like privacy but not for young people who need to share the costs.
 Whether you are happy or not depends on the personality you are born with. Do you agree?

1. money
2. health
3. ________ (your own idea)

Some people claim they are naturally cheerful. However, in my view, how we lead our lives is the main reason we are
either happy or unhappy.

Take money, for example. Money doesn't automatically make us happy. In fact, it makes some people very unhappy
because they are frightened of losing what they've got. On the other hand, if we're not greedy and don't spend it foolishly,
it can reduce stress and give us security.

Then consider health. If we eat badly, get too little sleep and don't exercise, our health will decline and make us
miserable. Eating well and going for lovely long walks in the countryside can make us feel better generally.

The third thing I think is important is to have a positive outlook on life. We should all enluy things like music and being
with our friends. At the same time, it's important to spend time alone and live as simply as possible, which is not easy in
the 21st century!

All these make a big difference to our happiness, no matter what our natural temperament.

Around the world many wildlife species are in danger of extinction. How can we protect endangered animals?
These days even more and more animals and plants are becoming extinct. That means they must be protected in order to
maintain the number of animals or plants, which are threatened by extinction.

The real question is how to protect them. For example, pollution is a huge threat to every single animal or plant. Pollution
is the reason for global warming, which causes the destruction of many animals' habitat. For example, the icy parts in the
north and south are melting very slowly, which puts penguins and polar bears in danger. In order to prevent that people
shouldn't throw away junk in the nature and should start recycling more.

Pollution is not the only reason for the extinction of animals. Unfortunately, many wild animals are being hunted
nowadays. This is mainly because of their beautiful fur, which is "perfect" for making coats. In order to help many
people have decided not to wear leather or fur at all.

Every year dozens of forests are being destroyed by people who need to open more place for construction. If they want to
save animals from extinction, they first have to reduce the construction, which will save a lot of forests and therefore
animals's habitat.

All these problems have solutions. Animals and plants are very important for our planet and, since we are the ones who
destroy them, it is up to us to do the right thing and protect them.

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 worlds 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 Earths 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.
The way we live now is different in many aspects from the way people lived 100 years ago. Technology has changed
how we earn our livings and carry out our daily lives. Our lives have improved in many important ways over the past 100
years. At the same time, there are certain positive things that have been lost.

Technology has improved our lives in many ways. We have machinery, electronic devices, and appliances that make our
work and daily chores easier. Advances in communications technology make it easier to be in contact wit colleagues,
personal friends, and relatives everywhere. We have many types of transportation that make it easy to travel anywhere,
even around the world, for both business and personal reasons, Finally, because of advances in medicine, fewer people
die of common diseases that were fatal not long ago. For all these reasons, we can say that life now is better than it was a
century ago.

On the other hand, there are other, less material, aspects of our lives that have not necessarily improved. For example,
while it is true that technology makes communication with distant loved ones easier, at the same time families are
breaking up. Family members no longer tend to live near one another as was common in the past. This means a loss of
important social and emotional support. In addition, because we have so many electronic devices, such as personal
computers, cell phones and so on, people tend to pay more attention to these devices than they do to their actual face to
face personal relationships.

It is easy to see that in a material sense, life is much better for many people now than it was just 100 years ago. However,
even though our material existence has greatly improved, our social and emotional lives have suffered. This is a
challenge for people living in the twenty-first century.