托福独立写作练习.doc

1. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Governments should spend more money on environment protection than on economic development.The issue of how environmental protection and economic development interrelate is highly debatable in recent years. Some people hold the view that the development of economy should be put on the first place for the growth of the city. Others maintain that governments should invest more in solving environmental issues in the long run. I agree with the latter opinion for the three reasons listed below.To begin with, a government is supposed to take it into account that a citys development should be sustainable. That means environmental protection without which the progress of a city will come to an end is a crucial part of the citys development. Take a chemical factory near my school for example. In the past, it would release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and pour waste directly into rivers, which contributed to global warming and lead to the contamination of the water source. As time went by, the environment near the factory ruined rapidly which completely prevented the factory from developing. As a result, the factory ended up with closing down. This could have been avoided if the factory realized the importance of environmental protection.Secondly, environmental protection which creates an eco-friendly area where residents mental health is well protected promotes the stability of the whole society. Obviously, without some degree of environmental sacrifice economic development can hardly be made. Thus, huge damage to the environment as well as human beings will be done as a result of the factories and government neglect. To be specific, factories that dump toxic waste into the surrounding regions main water supply will cause disease and other health defects of the citizens living in the area. Furthermore, the local healthcare system is going to be burdened an increasing number of patients which results in a large cost of millions of dollars which could have been spent on further developing the economy. On the contrast, adequate environmental protection can make it possible for the whole natural and social system to develop in a more eco-friendly way.Lastly, by investing more in developing technology which is eco-friendly, governments can not only leave our next generation a better living place but promote the economic growth. Economists all agree that green technology which has been tapped by many developed countries has gained a competitive edge in the global economy market. Developed countries, such as the U.S.A, Germany have managed to get ahead of the competition and invest before the other developing countries come to their senses. Governments who want to strengthen their countries competitive abilities are supposed not to ignore the importance of eco-friendly technology.As a rule, it is strongly recommended for governments allocate more funds toward environmental preservation rather than economic development.2. Do you agree or disagree with the statement that it is a waste of money for governments fund to space travel orspace exploration?The issue of whether it is a waste of money for governments fund to space travel or space exploration is highly debatable in recent years. Some people hold the view that human should pay attention to the world outside the earth. Others maintain that there is no need to do what is wasting time and money. I agree with the latter opinion for the following reasons.To begin with, the money which is planned to be spent on space exploration by government is supposed to be spent on education which is in greater demand. As is known to all, education which is fundamental construction plays an essential role in the development of a country. This practice not only conforms to the interests of the majorities but also cultivate various talents for the further development of the country. Once the education of a country reaches a high level, the whole nation is on its highway to thrive. So we can easily come to the conclusion that education weighs more than studying space.Secondly, economy development which is as significant as education should be paid more attention than space exploration. For one thing, the boom of economy is going to improve the living standard of the public, thus raising the educational level of the public. In other words, the better economy becomes, the better education will be. In that case, the importance of economy is self-evident. For another, the economy is able to raise the political status of a country. When a country manages to improve its economy, there is no doubt that its military might as well as commercial strength is getting stronger, which makes it possible for the country to gain respect from other countries. Therefore, the growth of economy is definitely more essential than space exploration.Admittedly, there are certain benefits of investing money in space exploration, such as developing new energy source and even finding an alternative home for human beings. However, compared with the reason provided for our viewpoint, these advantages seem lackluster. Therefore, I am still convinced that spending money on space exploration is a waste of money for government because governmental investment should be devoted to solving more pressing issues such as education and economy.3. The more money people have, the more they should give away for charity.Should those rich people who own more money than others donate part of their money to charity? Opinions vary widely. To some people, they regard the act of rich peoples giving away their money for charity as a kind of responsibility. Others hold the view that whether the wealthy is supposed to donate is decided by their own. Their money is at their own disposal. I agree with the former opinion for the reasons as follows.First and foremost, those people with greater wealth should give away their money partially in order to narrow the financial disparity between the poor and the rich, which results in the development of the social stability. As is known to all, the uneven distribution of wealth is the main factor causing the public to make complaints. Take a city near my hometown for example. There are a lots of luxury cars on the streets in the city which indicates a large number of rich people living here. However, at the same time, plenty of vagrants can be seen everywhere, which suggests the huge gap between the wealthy and the poor, thus making robbery rate high. Therefore, that the wealthy gives away their money to charity is of great importance.Secondly, the richer people can do a better job in charity, due to their better financial situation as well as their greater influence. Compared with people with lower income, the wealthier people are able to provide more money for those for those who are in need of help and have a greater effect on calling for the whole society to join in. The more money the wealthy owns, the less worried they will be after they do the donation. In other words, we can easily come to the conclusion that the better effect on the charity is made by those who have more money.Some people may assert that everyone has the right to distribute their own earnings. Nothing controls the will of those rich people. However, compared with the reasons provided for my standpoint, this view seems lackluster. The whole society needs some help to promote the social stability. Therefore, I am still convinced that people with more money should make more contribution to charity.4. Do you agree or disagree with the statement: Many people think that athletes or celebrities that are from the entertainment business can change their careers to be politicians. Do you agree or disagree with this idea of profession change?Could athletes or celebrities who work in the entertainment field change their job to become politicians? Opinions vary widely. To some people, it is just fine and what they do is at their disposal. But others hold different view that political stuffs should not be hand over to those who are not professional. I agree with the latter opinion for the following reasons.1.名人不是专门做政治的，他们很难做好。名人既然出身不是做政治的（as a major career），那他们肯定不够专业，那么换了工作肯定做不了。举例自己原来是学文的（students of arts）后来转专业到理科（students of science）发现自己几乎跟不上(unable to keep pace with )，表明转专业是一种违背自己天赋的行为（which violates ones talent），所以名人不应该去做政治。2.名人做政治会对公众产生负面影响，进而影响社会稳定。Public知道名人成为政客后，会觉得government没有take it serious，同时，这些人在社会上的形象总会与他们在之前的领域里的地位产生联系，因此产生不好的影响。3.有些人认为名人会有名人效应（celebrity charm）这对government是好的，但是对于政治里面的一些事名人效应反而会有negative effect instead of benefits所以Therefore, Im still convinced that those who are from the entertainment business should not change their career to become a politician.5. Do you agree or disagree with the statement: Playing computer games is a waste of time. Children should not be allowed to play them. (TPO10)Should children be allowed to play computer games? Opinions vary widely. To some people, children whose healthy growth is of great significance are not supposed to be exposed to those addictive games. Others hold different view that computer games which are creative and recreational can benefit children a lot. Study shows that children learn better and show greater creativity after they play computer games. I agree with the former opinion for the reasons as follows.First and foremost, computer games take up an amount of time which should be made full use to live and study by children, resulting in the degeneration eventually. Once one child is allowed to play those games, there is huge possibility that he is going to get addicted to it. When this happens, he is likely to spend hours even days to focus on a single screen. We can easily imagine that a boys life which is nothing but full of killing monsters and upgrading armor will definitely end up with collapse. Take a brother of mine for example. When he was in high school, he was presented a computer as a birthday gift at the age of 15. Then, my brother who used to be an excellent student in school was fascinated by those computer games immediately. After that, he spent great amount of time playing games regardless of his declining academic performance. Skipping classes in order to play games was a common occurrence for him. Due to the computer games, he didnt make it for the graduation, which caused his unemployment.Secondly, children who play computer games frequently have unreal social circles which are restricted to the online world and therefore they are devoid of social abilities. On the internet, communications between individuals are simplified by keyboard, which means children can send messages to each other without opening their mouths. In other words, childrens oral expression ability wont be developed. Their poor spoken skills will be a problem in their future life. Whats more, playing games which may act as a means of social contact between children are able to reduce the face-to-face interaction. Children will subsequently have difficulty to get along with others. All these social abilities play a crucial part in their future, which should be drawn enough attention.Admittedly, playing computer games after a full-day intensive learning are able to relax children. However, compared with reasons provided for my viewpoint, this advantage seems lackluster. In addition, studies of Health Research Center have been done which prove that sports can be the best way of relaxation. Lastly, we can safely come to the conclusion that children are not supposed to play computer games.6. Do you agree or disagree with the statement: The society benefits more from works of great artists than from political leaders.Recently, the issue of whether works made by artists have greater benefits for public than contribution made by political leaders does has been on the limelight and drew much concern of the society. Personally speaking, I deem it reasonable that political leaders are more beneficial for the society, compared with artists. Several reasons are listed as follows to buttress my arguments.First of all, with power and ability to regulate the economic market and make policies, political leaders are able to conform to the interest of the majority, which improves the quality of public life. For instance, a famous leader of Singapore, Guangyao Li, led his country to get through the Asia economic crisis and altered his homeland from a developing region to a rich and beautiful place. Regulating peoples business behaviors and developing the level of universities, Li successfully fulfilled his dream of beautifying his country. Therefore, political leaders are of crucial significance throughout the growth of the society. However, such achievement of works come out of artists can hardly be found.Secondly, when the society is in the midst of hardship, it is those who make decisions for the whole public that help overcome the difficulty. People tend to believe and stand by leaders pioneering and taking control in a terrible situation. For instance, Peru, which has frequent earthquakes and some other natural disasters every year, can avoid being severely damaged. It is the countrys political leaders that courage the citizens and accompany the society. Without leaders encouraging leadership, people are bound to get into confusion and hopeless. On the contrary, the masterpieces of artists seem less powerful in the face of difficulties.Admittedly, there are several certain benefits of works of artists, such as relaxing the public and improving their aesthetic view and quality. Nevertheless, compared with the reasons provided for my viewpoint, these advantages seem lackluster. The improvement of quality of aesthetic ability can hardly make progress with the well-being of the human beings. When it comes to the entire society, Im still convinced that the political leaders are of greater significance.7. Do you agree or disagree with the statement: Some parents do not agree with the way teachers are teaching their children. Do you think that parents should express their disapproval to the teachers?The issue of whether parents should present their disapproval to the teachers is highly debatable. Some people hold the view that there is no need for parents to convey their dissatisfaction since teachers have enough teaching experience to educate. Others maintain that communications between parents and teachers are never supposed to be banned and disagreement is not an exception. From my perspective, I deem the latter view reasonable. Several reasons are listed as follows to buttress my opinion.First and foremost, for the sake of their childrens healthy growth, parents have the responsibility to express their thoughts about the teaching methods to teachers. Being the legal guardians of their children, it is a duty for parents to make sure that the safety of their children is guaranteed and the teaching process is on the correct track. Take a school in my hometown for instance. Teachers in that school used to beat students who were not obeying with rods for punishment. Students informed their parents of what harm teachers did to them. Undoubtedly, parents with anger had conversations with teachers, expressing their disapproval. Thanks to the communication, teachers abandoned their crude way of teaching, which avoid continuing the past. It is the parents who act as supervisors that play significant part in the relationship between the school and the families.Furthermore, expressing disapproval to the teachers is an approach of advising, which helps them make progress in their career, thus in turn benefits the children. Not being professional, parents have different perspective when evaluating the method of teaching that teachers use. Therefore, parents are likely to devise constructive ideas that can be used for better teaching. Take a brother of mine for example. When he was in high school, he was not good at math. His father figured it out that during every semester, the math teacher arranged only one test which was the final exam. Later on, his father sent message to the math teacher proposing that extra tests should be added. Accepting the proposal, the teacher arranged more exams in class. Eventually, my brother made huge progress in math as a result of more practice.There is no denying that when there is controversy between parents and teachers, some unpleasant quarrel may happen, under which circumstance the loss outweighs the gain. However, compared with the reasons provided for my viewpoint, it seems lackluster. Therefore, Im still convinced that parents should express their disagreement to the teachers.8. When choosing a place for living, which factor is the most important one for you? 1. Living in an area not expensive, 2.Living close to relatives 3.Living in an area with many shops and restaurants.In recent years, people who have graduated from universities or have the ability to make livings have more and more choices of places for living. Where the best place to live is has loomed up as a controversy. There are three major factors affecting the problem. From my perspective, I deem it reasonable that the most significant factor is supposed to be living close to relatives. Several reasons are listed as follows to buttress my opinion.First and foremost, there will be lots of convenience of life living with relatives closely. It can be pretty simple for me to seek for help of my relatives when they are just few miles away from my house. It is often the case that when Im alone at home and come with some difficulties which can hardly be overcome by myself. Normally, I will call my relatives asking for solutions and under most circumstance it can be solved with their help, which means ther