Some people think that technology has made our life too complex and that one way
to solve this problem is to have a way of life without technology.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
I agree that technology has made our lives far more complex than they used to be – perhaps too complex. The suggestion that we solve this by developing a way of life without technology may solve that, but I think that the cost would be too great. The first problem that anyone wishing to rid us of modern technology would encounter would be convincing everyone to do so. It is unimaginable that some substantial groups of people or countries would give up their technology whilst leaving others with as much of it as they wanted. This does happen on small scales – the Amish in the USA, for
instance – but I cannot foresee the USA returning to a pre-industrial society and leaving, say, China to have and continue developing technology. Given human history, the likelihood of advanced countries simply taking over the less developed ones is just too great.
The second problem is that we are far too used to having technology around us. If the United Nations announced that all modern technology would cease to be used at a given time, it is highly probable that many people would rebel. To suggest that there would be global chaos is not an understatement. Anyone with investments in companies dealing with technology would find their savings wiped out overnight. Anyone involved in international business would find themselves in a desperate situation. Whilst there are people who advocate a return to a simpler lifestyle, even they frequently utilise
technology when it suits them, such as when they require medical attention. To summarise, a life without technology may appeal to some – and they are welcome to follow that lifestyle, but the idea that everyone should follow suit is, in my opinion, both  unrealistic and dangerous.

Some people say that younger people are not suitable for important positions in
government while others think it is a good idea.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
I think that there are persuasive arguments in favour of having younger people in
important positions in government, thought I can see that there may be disadvantages.
In my opinion, many governments suffer from a lack of fresh ideas for policies. Part of
the problem seems to me to be that older members of the governments lack a vision of
how to handle modern, dynamic situations and have become too risk averse to try new
methods – or indeed any method outside of their comfort zone. Perhaps the addition of a
few younger political leaders could change that.
Younger politicians might also be better aware of the impact and uses of modern
technology. They are more likely to have ideas about enhancing technology for the
overall benefit of society. For example, many young people see how the information age
has brought about new possibilities. Often, it is young people who oppose artificial
restrictions imposed by a political elite with whom they feel disconnected.
The classic argument against having younger people in important political positions is
that they lack experience. As I become older, I find this argument less and less
convincing. When I was a teenager, Israelis and Palestinians were murdering each other.
They still are. All the 'experience' of leading politicians from around the globe has
pointedly failed to resolve this issue. Perhaps it's time to hand the baton to people with
less 'experience'.
Very often, it seems to me that 'experience' is actually code for 'baggage'. Older
politicians frequently seem to be unable to step back and look at issues in an objective,
dispassionate, less dogmatic manner. They often look to the past for inspiration. History
certainly has lessons to teach us, but do these people learn or are they simply doomed to
repeat?
To summarise, I am not convinced that the inexperience of young people precludes them
from holding high political office. In fact, it may be their greatest asset.

Some people believe mobile phones are most useful in their professional lives whilst
others believe they are most useful in their personal lives.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Different people use their mobile phones in various ways, so it is natural that some find
them more useful in their professional lives whereas others think that they are more
useful in their private lives.
It has always been common for people to work away from their colleagues and the people
who work in the same company as them. Similarly, there have always been salespeople
who have had to maintain contact with clients. In the past, this severely limited
opportunities for doing business. It sometimes necessitated long journeys – dangerous
journeys. People could use letters, but they took time too. Telephones greatly improved
business communications, but required people to be at certain places. Mobile
communications make business much easier. People can easily be contacted worldwide at
practically any time.
Of course, the same points apply equally to personal communications. Families and
friends are a vital part of all but the least social of people's lives. In the past, it was all to
easy to lose contact with someone when you or they accidentally missed an appointment.
Nowadays, mobile phones mean that people can let each other know that they cannot
make an appointment or that they will be late. In addition, the proliferation of social
networks and apps, which many people can use with their mobiles, allows people to
interact socially with people who are in their area and/or who have similar interests.
Personally, I have found mobile phones to be extremely useful in both my personal and
business lives. However, if I had to choose the one where it has been most beneficial, I
would say that, thanks to making it easier to stay in touch with friends and family, the
greater benefit has been in my personal life.

Many people feel that society is noisier than before.
What are some of the causes of increased noise? What can we do about it?
I live in a modern city and, although I enjoy life there, excessive noise is something that I
am acutely aware of. In this essay, I shall briefly examine two of the causes of noise in
modern society and provide a few suggestions as to how we might be able to reduce it.
One of the main causes of increased noise is traffic. More vehicles are on the roads and
drivers frequently beep their horns. In addition, most vehicles are fitted with alarms that
seem to be set off by the lightest of breezes. Many people seem to be in favour of
reducing traffic, but they don't want anything done that will reduce their own ability to
use vehicles. Perhaps one solution is to increase the scope of pedestrian zones, where
vehicles are not permitted. Another might be to only allow parking in certain areas, which
would reduce the amount of traffic where parking is not permitted.
Many people in cities live in apartment blocks, thanks to the high price of property
relative to incomes. Very often, people are disturbed by noise created by their
neighbours. This is not only annoying, it can lead to arguments and unpleasantness
between neighbours. Nowadays, sound insulation materials are better than ever and it
might be worth considering mandatory use of these materials in all new residential
buildings. It may even be possible to use them in ones that have already been built.
To sum up, these are the main reasons why I think many people feel that modern city life
is noisier than before. It is impossible to eradicate noise, but the ideas mentioned above
could make life more bearable.
277 words

Writing Task 2
Some people have an unhealthy diet and do not have enough exercise.
How can we encourage people to have a healthy lifestyle?
In this short essay, I will outline a few ways in which we can encourage people to lead
healthier lifestyles.
In Britain, we have a health care system that is free to use. British people often describe
this as a free health care system, but that is not quite correct. The system is funded
through general taxation. This means that there is no direct incentive to be healthier.
People pay for the system regardless of whether – or how often – they use it. If people
had to pay when they used the system, they might pay more attention to their health.
Alternatively, individual insurance could cover the cost.
Another possibility is to make unhealthy food less attractive by making it more
expensive. This could be done fairly easily in the cases of processed food and sugary or
fatty food. One method would be to increase tax on those food items that are considered
unhealthy. A second alternative would be to reduce tax on healthy foods, such as
unprocessed fruit and vegetables.
A third way to try to persuade people to lead healthier lifestyles might be through the use
of warnings on food packaging. At the moment, in Britain and many other countries, food
packaging shows information such as calories, sugar, fat, vitamins, minerals, etc. A
simple addition could be the use of colour coding to indicate how healthy the food is. For
example, red could indicate that the food is unhealthy whilst green could be used for
healthy food.
In addition, we need to encourage people to take more exercise. In China, there are often
simple exercise machines in residential compounds. Perhaps this is an innovation that we
could import. If free exercise is easily available, people are more likely to take the
opportunity to shed a little weight. Admittedly, this would be a more costly method than
improving food labelling or taxing unhealthy food more.
To summarise, I think that there several methods we could implement to encourage
people to be healthier.
334 words

Useful phrase

In many countries it is now illegal to smoke in public places. It is only fair that people who wish to smoke should have to leave the building. Do you agree or disagree?

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

In many countries it is now illegal to smoke in public places. It is only fair that people who wish to smoke should have to leave the building. Do you agree or disagree?

Give reason for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Write at least 250 words.

model answer:

The issue of smoking and smoking bans is an emotive one because smokers and non-smokers both tend to hold strong views about their rights. Many countries have now chosen to ban smoking altogether from indoor areas and public places, which is a radical change ( những thay đổi căn bản )  from the way things used to be until quite recently.

Non-smokers have been complaining for years that they should not have to breathe in other people’s smoke in places such as the workplace, restaurants and cafes and on buses, trains and planes. It is hard to argue that non-smokers do not have a right to be protected from this. Smoking also causes problems for the owners and workers in such places who have to clean up after smokers or redecorate more often. => non-smokers are affected by smoke from smokers 

Generally speaking, therefore, I am in favour of smoke-free workplaces, transport and buildings. Non-smokers should not have other people’s smoke imposed on them. We have to accept, however, that there are a large number of people who smoke and will continue to smoke. Many of them enjoy the company of other smokers and feel it is unfair that they should always be made to stand in doorways when they want to smoke.

In a consumer age that seems to put choice above everything else, shouldn’t they have the right to meet and socialise with other smokers if they want to? A more balanced policy than the one now in place in many countries would be to allow certain cafes and restaurants to apply for a smoking licence. These places would then have to advertise themselves as smoking places. Certain areas of buildings such as workplaces could also be made into smoking rooms or areas but only if the company wished to. Such measures would still give the majority their smoke-free environment but protect the wishes of the minority that smoke.