English Recordings

I'm going to describe my university's library. Since it has a large collection of English books, I love spending my mornings there to practice English reading and also gain insight into all kinds of subjects.

The Inuit people are Native Canadians. They live in the far northern areas of Canada. A member of the Inuit community is called an Inuk.
An igloo is an Inuit's home. It is made out of snow and ice for the winter and from animal skins for the summer.
They use furs from animals like caribou, polar bears, rabbits, and foxes, and seal skin as well to make shirts, pants, boots called kaki, hats, and big jackets called anoraks.
They mostly live off meat from hunting animals. They hunt seals, walruses, and the bowhead whale with harpoons. They also eat fish and wild berries.
They travel long distances on land and ice with sleighs called qamutik, drawn by husky dogs called mushers.

Pepper is a social humanoid robot. It was developed by SoftBank Robotics.
Pepper is 120cm tall and it has a touch screen on its chest. It has many sensors, microphones and cameras. It has a curvy design that makes it friendly.
Pepper is able to speak 15 langagues such as English, Spanish, French, etc.
Pepper is able to welcome, inform and guide vistors. Pepper can also be useful in education. For example, it can be useful with students with disabilities.
In the future, it will also be able to react more genuinely to human basic emotions, and move and speak more naturally.

History, simply because it helps me gain fascinating insight into the civilization and background of different countries. I believe that through reading about history, we can avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

Smoking

Topic: The best way to prevent people from smoking is to impose high taxes on tobacco products. In this way, people will be less likely to develop a long-term addiction to smoking. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Model answer:

Some have suggested that the best method of reducing the number of smokers is for governments to raise taxes. Although there are economic disadvantages, I believe that this will have the greatest impact.

The economic disadvantage of increasing taxes on smoking is that it will hurt the large tobacco industries in countries like the United States. In the USA, Phillip Morris, the largest tobacco company in the world, provides thousands of jobs and pays large taxes on its revenue to prop up state and federal budgets. If taxes on tobacco had their desired effect then many people would lose their jobs and budgets would be slashed. This is a sacrifice that many might be willing to accept but that would be nonetheless negative.

Despite the aforementioned drawbacks, raising the cost of smoking is the best way to reduce smoking. A good example of this can be seen in a comparison of countries with little or no tax on tobacco products with those with high taxes. Indonesia famously has a particularly high number of smokers and the main reason for this is that the tobacco lobbies have blocked tax legislation, keeping the price of a pack below a dollar. In many European countries, smoking is on the decline because few can justify paying more than ten dollars for a pack of cigarettes.

In conclusion, although it might have a negative impact on the economy and jobs, raising taxes on tobacco related goods will reduce smoking. If more governments embraced this approach, they would reap future rewards in reduced spending for medicare.

Society

Topic: In many countries people are living in a “throwaway society” where things are used for a short time and thrown away. What are the causes of this and what problems does it lead to?

Model answer:

The proliferation of single use products is a major concern for all countries. In my opinion, the main cause of this is increased disposable income coupled with advances in technology and the main result of this trend is environmental degradation.

The rise of single or limited use products comes from new technologies and people’s ability to afford these items. A hundred years ago, it would not have been possible to cheaply produce plastic products on a mass scale. The technological advances of the last hundred years have made these products profitable for large companies like Walmart. Of course the advances in technology have only met demand from a burgeoning global middle class. People today do not have to use the same plates, dishes, and bags that previous generations would have been more protective of; nowadays people can afford to buy and throw out various household items.

The main result of the overdependence on single use products is burning more fossil fuels which in turn escalates climate change. Cheap plastic is made through a chemical process involving raw oil and is then transported on ships or planes running on petrol before being carted on trucks to supermarkets. The total accumulation of fossil fuel consumption is therefore massive. In the last half century this has precipitated climate change leading to increases in the severity of natural disasters, further endangerment of plant and animal species and dire warnings by climate scientists for the standard of living of future generations.

In conclusion, the so-called ‘throwaway society’ is a result of economic and technological factors and is taking a massive toll on the environment. More governments should seek to curb this problem by instituting wide-reaching bans on single-use plastics like straws and bags.

Family and the Home

Topic: Many parents encourage young people to leave home when they become older, while others think they should stay at home with the family. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Model answer:

It has become increasingly prevalent for young adults to leave home before getting married. In my opinion, this is a positive trend taken as a whole because it fosters independence but it can have rare debilitating financial drawbacks.

The main drawback to moving out early is losing a parental safety net that safeguards financial stability. In large cities such as New York, real estate prices are so high that without a high-paying job you will struggle to contend with rent, food, transportation costs, and allowances for leisure activities. It is even possible that these hardships could prove overwhelming and pride may prevent you from going back to your parents. These individuals might end up taking a job with a low salary or that is not their passion.

The aforementioned drawbacks are the exceptions; the majority of people who move out are successful because they become self-reliant. A standout example of this is the typical American university student. Most students leave their parental home at 18 and never look back. These students take their first baby steps towards looking after themselves by doing their own laundry, managing their finances to an extent, and taking on campus employment. Once they graduate from university they will likely take over their entire financial outlay. This means they must find a good job and spend more responsibly. These qualities, of frugality and responsibility, will serve them well in their lives and increase their odds of future success.

In conclusion, the majority benefit from the added responsibility that leaving home brings. To encourage more people to move out parents should provide a degree of financial support when necessary but focus moreso on fostering their children’s independence.

Crime and the Police

Topic: Some countries are struggling with increases in crime rates. Some believe that having more police on the streets is best way to reduce and combat crime. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Model answer:

Many countries today are grappling with the best ways to curb rising crime rates and some have suggested that increased police presence on the streets is the optimal solution. Although I think this would have a positive effect for obvious reasons, the best solution is more nuanced and requires a deeper understanding of the sources underlying crime.

There is little doubt that employing greater numbers of police officers will have an adverse effect on criminality. One of the best examples of this would be in New York City under Mayor Rudy Giuliani during the late 1980s and early 90s. At that time, New York was a haven for criminals and many areas of the city were deemed too dangerous by residents to safely live in or walk through at night. One of the many measures that Giuliani used to reduce crime was significantly increasing the number of police officers during his time in office. This led to a reciprocal decline in crime and made the tourist-heavy neighbourhoods almost entirely safe and the rougher districts at least passably crime-free.

The above-mentioned measures were only effective because administrators also tackled the root causes of crime. It is generally agreed upon that the principle causes of crime are related to education indirectly and poverty more directly. If you look at countries with extremely low poverty and unemployment rates, such as Japan, you will see correspondingly low rates of crime. In Japan, this begins with one of the world’s most renowned educational systems. Students graduate from high school and university with immediately employable skills and most are employed throughout their lifetimes. Since they have money to afford a good standard of living there is little incentive for criminal behaviour and the crime rate is among the lowest in the world.

In conclusion, the best way to reduce crime in the long-term is to invest more in education and the economy to stimulate job growth and address the catalysts spurring on crime. Any government that is serious about making their country a safer place must first take steps to improve their educational system as that will have the largest impact on creating the stable jobs that discourage criminality in all its forms.

Health Problems Individuals/Governments

Topic: Many people believe that every individual is responsible for his/her own healthy lifestyle. Others believe that governments should take care of it. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Model answer:

There has been much recent policy advocacy related to what the proper role of governments in healthcare should be. Although I believe governments have begun to treat this issue with the seriousness it merits, the responsibility for taking care of one’s health should ultimately rest with individuals as they are more likely to stick with habits that they themselves have cultivated.

Those who favour strong governmental intervention often point out the role of the state in forming healthy eating habits through early intervention at public schools. In the United States, the vast majority of students attend state schools and in recent years the government has been implementing new policies aimed at curbing addiction to unhealthy foods. This means that they have reduced the total intake of saturated fats in school lunches and drastically cut down on sugar not only in prepared lunches but also in the ubiquitous vending machines placed around most schools. In the short term this has led to improved health for students but its true effect will be over the next several decades when these children grow up and are more likely to eschew fast food for the healthier alternatives now opening up to meet the growing demands of an increasingly health-conscious nation.

While there are clear benefits to governmental action, individuals are better at regulating their own behaviour in the long-term. People have always found ways to get around rules in order to satisfy their most basic desires, including those related to food. No matter what steps governments take, people will always crave unhealthy, delicious foods as our brains are hardwired to feel pleasure from saturated fats, carbohydrates, and sugar. For example, even a country like France, which has imposed strict rules over the food that children are served, is still facing an obesity crisis. Therefore the only way for people to consistently combat poor health is to develop the discipline on their own. Individuals who make the choice to eat healthier are more likely to stick with this habit having worked out the reasons for themselves, rather than simply following a rule imposed by their schools at the behest of the government.

In conclusion, governments have a large role to play in public health but only individuals can take control of their own lives and make decisions that will truly benefit them in the future. In this case, the best solution is simply no solution. Standing back and allowing people to become more self-reliant will not only have more long-lasting effects but will also empower individuals in various other areas of their life to be more responsible.

Music Bringing People Together

Topic: Some people say that music is a good way of bringing people of different cultures and ages together. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Model answer:

Music has always been a key distinguisher of culture but many believe that it can also bridge cultural gaps and differences in age. Though I think some people overstate the impact of music leveling the differences between generations, I strongly believe that it brings people of different cultures together by expressing universal sentiments.

The main reason that I believe music is not a particularly good unifier in terms of generational disparity is that people tend to enjoy the music from their formative years and disdain whatever is currently relevant. Though there are of course exceptions, most people would recognise the mostly accurate stereotype of an old person complaining about the music that youths listen to nowadays. For example, in America some of the most popular artists today include Kanye West, Taylor Swift, and Rihanna. These artists differ greatly from past musicians. Kanye is a brash rapper with controversial opinions whose music constantly shifts and redefines genre. Taylor Swift and Rihanna write sugary pop songs that become ubiquitous in cafes and on the radio. Older people prefer what they used to listen to, whether that be intricate melodies and insightful writing of The Beatles or the raw sincerity of old school rap. The differences between the generations are reflected and augmented rather than mediated due to the different personalities and styles of modern music.

Although music does little to alleviate generational barriers, it does help cultures relate through universal, human perspectives. What I mean by this is that even though people may not understand another culture they can still understand the messages of the music. One great example of this is the music of Bob Marley. Bob Marley is from a small Carribbean country called Jamaica, a country whose culture has become influential around the world. This is because he expressed universal feelings of love, empathy, and positivity against the backdrop of a nation experiencing political and economic upheaval. His resilience against this pulses through his infectious music and has translated across cultural divides. An Asian person, who might not have any firsthand experience with different races or cultures, can still identify with Bob Marley and enjoy his music. This connection based entirely on music brings together people of disparate cultures through an emotional and intellectual bonding on common issues.

In conclusion, although music may actually do more to divide the young and old it definitely uses its universality to bring together different cultures. It is especially important at a time when the world appears to be more divided than ever that we find common ground to build cross-cultural relationships upon.