English Recordings

Sugary Drinks

Topic: More and more people today are drinking sugar-based drinks. What are the reasons for this? What are the solutions?

Model answer:

Health experts have warned against a rise in addictions to sugary drinks and the concomitant risks. In my opinion, this is due to both advertising and encroachment in developing markets and the solution is to enact various restrictions.

Over-consumption of sugary drinks can be directly attributed to advertising and opening up vulnerable new markets. In much of the developed world, people are becoming more health conscious and while consumption may increase as a total number, it is more likely to decline as a proportion. This is not the case in the developing world in countries such as Vietnam. A burgeoning middle-class in the last two decades coupled with unregulated ad campaigns from Pepsi and Coca Cola have led to a pandemic of sugary drinks in the market. Consumers now have more disposable income and are generally less educated about the long-term effects of sugar while companies are eager to exploit these facts to fatten their bottom line.

The only proven solutions for any public health crisis are regulation. One of the most famously successful laws in this area was the ban on large sugary drinks in New York City. It prohibited only the largest sizes but had a large impact before it was ultimately repealed due to corporate lobbying. In its place, many states including New York and California enacted taxes that have driven up the cost of sugar-heavy drinks. The result is that fewer people are willing to take on the associated health risks given the higher prices. If federal governments tax these drinks similarly to cigarettes, then their popularity will decline even faster.

In conclusion, the ubiquity of sugary drinks is down to exploitation of developing nations and can be curbed through thoughtful regulation. Governments that take firm, unpopular steps towards these reforms will later save money in medical care.

Income Inequality

Topic: Many believe that the best way to ensure a happier society is to reduce the difference in income earnings between the rich and poor. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Model answer:

Class distinctions are an intrinsic element of human relations but many today worry over the drastically widening gap between rich and poor. In my opinion, in order to have a happy society there must be a more equal distribution of income.

The main reason that these economic reforms would make society happier is by diffusing personal frustrations. The less wealthy often feel resentful and insecure about their place in life. This has a number of symptoms ranging from relatively benign unhappiness to deep depression, and takes a collective toll on individuals, families and societies. In the most extreme examples, mass shootings in the United States are invariably undertaken by poor, white males who feel left behind economically. The net impact of lifting people out of poverty would be a boon to everyday families as well as society at large.

Furthermore, if people no longer had to stress and work themselves to the bone to make ends meet, new outlets to contribute more to society would open up. They could volunteer for a charity, if they have an altruistic bent, take up an art, spend more time being a dedicated family member, or even set aside time to try to innovate in their vocation. Small-scale parallels for this exist already in the form of scholarships given to underprivileged students who are then able to get degrees and contribute across a variety of disciplines to making society happier in general.

In conclusion, there is little doubt that in the 21st century income inequality has reached a level that causes extreme unrest among the general population and distributing capital more evenly would remedy this. Countries ought to look closely at recent proposals for a universal basic income.

Online Materials

Topic: Many people feel that students should learn from online materials while others feel that it is better to use printed materials. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Model answer:

There have been recent calls for schools to phase out printed materials and take better advantage of online resources. Although printed materials enable important cognitive returns, schools should adopt online materials almost exclusively to protect the environment.

Printed materials encourage children to develop good thinking habits. Children and teenagers will of course spend an outsized amount of time on the internet, through smartphones and computers, as they grow up. This not only impacts their attention span and brain chemistry but also makes them susceptible to worryingly unreliable online information. Printed materials, on the other hand, are written by well-regarded authors, thoroughly researched, and students cannot get distracted by the lures of the internet while reading a physical book.

Nonetheless, online materials present an opportunity to protect the world’s trees at a time when they are under great threat. Take the typical life cycle of a school’s coursebooks for example. Hundreds of students in a single grade are given a dozen books for various subjects every year. The books tend to be reused for several years but they later must be replaced with newer editions, necessitating more trees be cut down. Using online materials does not entail the same level of environmental costs. Textbooks can be easily updated and no trees have to be chopped down to create the devices in the first place. Over time, this will have a dramatic impact on tree populations around the globe and help mitigate the looming damage of climate change.

In conclusion, administrators should make every effort to replace the outdated medium of paper with their electronic equivalent. This is merely one step, but a still crucial one, in saving the earth from imminent catastrophe.

Extreme Sports

Topic: Extreme sports such as sky diving and skiing are very dangerous and should be banned. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?

Model answer:

The increasing popularity of so-called extreme sports such as base jumping and rock climbing have led to backlash calling for them to be banned. Although these sports are potentially fatal, they should not be banned as they are also fun and can be undertaken responsibly.

The reason that many have demanded limits on extreme sports is their potential for injury and death. Take for example one of the most notorious extreme sports: base jumping. In this sport, participants jump off a given point (a cliff or building, for example) with a parachute. There is very little time before they hit the ground so unforeseen parachute malfunctions are possible and the fatality rate is extremely high. Those that do not die may suffer severe, debilitating injuries such as paralysis and brain damage. Base jumping is something of an outlier on the spectrum of dangerous sports but all these sports involve varying degrees of danger.

Despite the aforementioned concerns, I believe the fun people have outweighs potential injury when they are cautious. Base jumping is the most perilous extreme sport but other sports such as skiing, deep-sea diving, and rock climbing are relatively safe. Rock climbing is a good example of a sport that can be very safe and fun if proper precautions are taken. You should sign up for training and go with someone who knows how to safely rig up the harness and tie the requisite knots. Many people who try it end up become passionate rock climbers because it is an exhilarating experience. Most extreme sports, taken seriously, present little real danger and are an enjoyable pastime.

In conclusion, extreme sports are fun and do not have to be particularly dangerous. People should take the opportunity to responsibly try out at least one extreme sport in their lives in order to see if it is to their liking.

Children Starting School

Topic: Some people think that children should begin their formal education at a very early age. Some think they should begin at least 7 years old. Discuss both views give opinions.

Model answer:

There has been growing momentum in recent years towards movements for children to start schooling after the age of 7. In my opinion, although going to school from a young age will help with social development, children should be allowed to grow outside school until the age of 7.

Proponents of early schooling often point out the clinical research on the impact of school on social skills. At home, children are exposed to a variety of different circumstances. They may or may not have siblings, their parents might take them out for playdates often or neglect them at home, hampering their social skills. Once children start school, they are all in more or less an equal environment where they must communicate with older and younger children, compromise when playing, learn to listen to their teachers, and start forming stable bonds based on empathy and shared interests with others.

Despite the social advantages, children can develop more uniquely if they are allowed to delay their entrance to formal schooling. A good example of this is in Finland, where students do not begin school until after the age of 7. Finland is renowned for its top-performing students but this can be traced to a number of factors besides simply school age. However, the impact on individual development is apparent. According to research into child psychology, children form the basis of their personality between the ages of 4 and 7. Therefore it is paramount to delay the age when they begin school in order to give them room to breathe and ultimately produce a greater variety of voices in society at large as has been the case in Finland.

In my opinion, the social benefits of school do not outweigh the individual positives of delayed schooling to both the individual and society. Schools should continue to research this area so that they can better advise policymakers.

Healthy Lifestyle

Topic: Many think that in today’s world it is very difficult for people to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Others, however, feel that it is easy for people to be healthy and fit if they want to be. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Model answer:

Living a healthy lifestyle has become an increasingly important topic as what researchers know about nutrition has evolved. In my opinion, despite some obvious hurdles it is easier than ever for people to be healthy and fit today.

The main hurdles related to fitness today revolve around technology. A few decades ago people led much more active lives that involved more exercising and comparatively less time in front of screens. The advent of computer technology generally and the smartphone in particular has precipitated more passive lifestyles globally. Smartphones are the chief culprit. People become easily addicted to the small dopamine rushes that phones provide and their availability means they are tailor-made to be everyone’s worst habit. This prevents many people from developing healthy exercise patterns and, in cases where people binge watch shows on Netflix or YouTube, can also cause over-eating.

Despite the above mentioned challenges, it is easy to be healthy today because of the amount of information on nutrition available. Doctors a hundred years ago recommended smoking cigarettes and the many sources of heart disease were only documented decades ago. Today everywhere you look there are articles and people on television laying out hard evidence related to nutrition as well as the importance of eating vegetables and limiting meats and fatty foods. There is healthy debate and the consensus on specific foods might fluctuate but the general trend is greater awareness of which foods are healthy and which ones will shorten your life and undermine your fitness goals.

In conclusion, although there are good excuses today to be unfit, people can learn enough about nutrition to lead a healthy life with a degree of ease. Schools should make greater efforts in the future to teach students about nutrition and set them up with the knowledge they need to combat passivity.

Crime & Technology

Topic: The crime rate nowadays is decreasing compared to the past due to advances in technology. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Model answer:

It is often argued that precipitous global declines in crime are principally down to developments in technology. While advanced technology admittedly plays and integral role in crime reduction, I would argue education hits more directly at the cause of crime.

The biggest argument in favour of technology’s impact is the advent of forensic science. In the past, forensics was an unreliable soft science that included notoriously mistake prone practices such as a dental identification and blood splatter analysis. Over the last couple of decades it has grown into a much more accurate tool. Courts now rely heavily on DNA testing, which is nearly 100% conclusive in most cases. This has had a two-fold effect, allowing prosecutors to reopen and investigate cold cases as well as better prosecute and deter current criminals.

However, education still more powerfully underpins decreases in crime because it does more to eradicate poverty. Poverty is far and away the chief cause of crime. Take for example a country such as China, which has developed rapidly in the last 30 years, elevating millions formerly below the poverty line. Their economic rise has been followed by better educational standards which has trickled down into better employment opportunities for graduates. The crime rate in China has plummeted simply because far fewer people have the basic motivation, poverty, to commit crimes.

In conclusion, the impact of technology is negligible next to educational reform, which undermines the deepest roots of crime. Forward-looking countries that prioritise education will also reap benefits that extend well beyond the crime rate.

Environment, Government, & Individuals

Topic: Many believe that individuals can do little to improve the environment. Only governments and large companies can make a real difference. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Model answer:

Many people today have resigned themselves to the fact that necessary environmental reforms will only be effective if enacted by governments and corporations. I believe that although influential organisations will ultimately be decisive, individuals must force them to act and are therefore the ones making the real difference.

Those who argue individuals are relatively powerless point out the tangible benefits of governmental regulations on corporations. One standout example of this is the oft imitated clean energy initiatives championed by Barack Obama. His greatest legacy in the eyes of many is the regulatory laws he pushed through congress that gave tax breaks to renewable energy companies and imposed stiff penalties on companies reliant on fossil fuel exploitation. These sweeping provisions have accomplished more than any grassroots, individual movements have.

However, the only reason governments and corporations protect the environment is because of external pressure from voters and consumers. This is clearly reflected in the campaign platforms of most liberal politicians in first world developed nations. It is a basic requirement to run with a cohesive environmental plan to have any electoral hopes. The same pattern repeats itself in terms of corporations, though to a lesser degree. More and more consumers are environmentally conscious and this has pushed companies like Apple and Amazon to rethink and loudly publicise their environmental policies.

In conclusion, environmentally friendly governmental and corporate reform is driven by individuals. The key question of our age has now become how receptive governments will be to the will of the people.

Museum Visitors & Entrance Fees

Topic: Many museums charge for admission while others are free. Do you think the advantages of charging people for admission to museums outweigh the disadvantages?

Model answer:

Many are of the belief that museums should be free to the public because of their enormous potential to educate while others feel charging money helps ensure the quality of the art therein. I concede the benefits of the latter argument but would still side with those who advocate free admissions.

The main reason that many are in support of charging money is that it sustains both the maintenance and quality of exhibitions. A good example of this would be the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York City. MoMA is generally regarded as one of the finest museums in the world and is famous not only for its well-maintained facade but also the ever-rotating artworks on display. They charge a nominal entrance fee in the neighbourhood of $20 a ticket and invest that money wisely to ensure a memorable experience for all museum-goers.

Despite the advantages for a private museum such as MoMA, I think making all museums free would encourage more people to appreciate art. A contrasting example with MoMA would be a museum just a few blocks away: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. The MET has educated and uplifted millions of citizens regardless of their socioeconomic status. The wealthy who can afford museum admission are likely to already have a deep appreciation of the arts as well as the leisure time to enjoy their practice. People, and children especially, from poorer backgrounds have fewer opportunities and free museums is the best way to support appreciation of the arts en masse.

In conclusion, the benefits of free museum admissions, particularly for lower income families, outweigh the benefits of charging. The bigger issue is how governments and other organisations can budget free or relatively inexpensive museums.

Personal Energy Consumption

Topic: Scientists have been warning for many years about environmental protection and how important it is to limit our personal energy consumption. What are the causes of the over-consumption of electricity? How can people be encouraged to use less energy?

Model answer:

For decades, warnings of incoming climate catastrophe have grown louder and many today are making concerted efforts to limit their carbon footprint. In my opinion, the main cause of over-consumption of electricity is the development of technology and people can be taught to limit their energy usage through strict governmental regulations.

People today use more electricity because technology has pervaded every aspect of life. Several decades ago, electricity was mainly used to power a limited number of household items including lights, televisions and washing machines. It still powers those devices but now there are phones to charge and computers that use electricity throughout the day. People tend to spend more time at home, online with their devices thus using more power. Even the large servers and generators required to power the internet add to the collective electric toll of modern technology.

The best way to cultivate good energy habits is to impose regulations. Government regulations have been a proven remedy in curbing human excess in terms of using plastic bags (bans) and smoking (taxes). This would also work when it comes to energy. One simple solution would be to tax energy use, though this step would have socioeconomic bias built into it. A better approach might be to regulate the energy efficiency of household items. This would target a high percentage of people across all classes and have an easily quantifiable, manageable outcome.

In conclusion, outsized energy consumption is down to technology and governments can regulate to minimise it moving forward. The more effort put into reducing energy use, the more dividends future generations will reap from today’s reforms.