雅思9分作文.doc

2005年9月3日考题Children who grow up in families which are short of money are better prepared to deal with the problems of adult life than children who are brought up by wealthy parents. To what extent do you agree or disagree?Some feel that the children of low income families are better equipped to deal with difficulties posed by the real world when they grow up and they also believe the privileged children of wealthy families are less fit to deal with these difficulties. The implications and veracity of this argument seem self-evident, but in fact require closer examination. The popular wisdom is that children of poorer families learn early on the value of a buck, and are thus naturally better suited to stretching money when times get tough in adulthood. Inversely, the children of wealthy families, those born with a silver spoon in their mouths, are believed to be completely ignorant of the value of money, having had everything provided for them in their youth and oftentimes erroneously expecting the same situation in adulthood. They are believed to be prone to overspending and financial irresponsibility. This belief, though logical, overlooks one key point which is, of course, education. The basis of this argument is, of course, knowing the value of money, and the idea that children of the poor know this, and those of the wealthy do not. Who though, is in a better position to teach their children the value of money; someone skilled in earning and keeping it, the wealthy parent, or someone who cannot seem to acquire it, the poor parent? Both wealthy and poor children are equally likely to acquire an education in money, whether it is formal, or in the school of hard knocks. Conversely, both children are as likely to ignore this education. A poor child may believe that one can get along, if not as easily, without wealth. A wealthy child may be well trained by a parent steeped in the knowledge of money management; the key to developing this skill is education.2004年7月24日学术类大作文The government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to decrease violent crimes in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree?It has been suggested that the government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to decrease the rate of violent crimes in society. It would certainly be easy to garner support for such a move, but solely adapting such a policy will do little to effect social change.（54 words） The question has often been raised as to what extent media violence actually influences behavior. One can readily recount incidences of a child or young person viewing some violent behavior in a movie or on television and then trying to reproduce that situation in real life. It is hard to estimate the amount of violence which can be traced back to television shows or movies but the existence of such incidences is undeniable. Logically, removing this violent content should directly reduce the incidence of such violence but this relationship between violent media content and violent behavior is not so simple.(100 words) While much has been recorded of young people imitating media violence, little has been directed to the influence of sad violence on those who are able to differentiate the imaginary situations in movies and on television from reality. If one were to find no similar relationship it could be immediately surmised that the most direct solution is increased supervision of young people, and not the modification of media content. The degree to which people are influenced by what they see in the media depends directly on how responsibly they are educated about the relationship of fiction and reality.(98 words) Watching comedies does not transform one into a comedian, and watching violent movies does not directly make one violent. Rather than taking crude half measures to repair complex social problems, more focus must be placed on the nature of interpersonal relationships, social responsibility and personal accountability.(46 words)2005/7/9Some people think the government should pay for health care and education, others think that the government has not such responsibility. Discuss both views and give your opinion.Some believe that the government should pay for health care and education; others contend that it should have no such responsibility. When it comes to governmental funding, it is easy to cause people to misunderstand what it actually means. Governmental funding in this area is a more complex question than it appears. At its first suggestion, it may seem like a good idea to place the burden of healthcare and education funding in the hands of the government. In this way, one can imagine that funding would always be available and that there would be a standard and constancy in the quality of the institutions set up through such funding. Education and healthcare in particular are fields in which national standards are sought after. It is easy to forget however that government funds do not spring unbidden from nowhere, in fact they are gathered from individual citizens in the form of taxation. Government funding is in fact public funding. The first objectors to such a program are those who have no immediate need of such institutions. The majority of taxed individuals are working adults who are no longer students and may not have children. Although unlikely, many people hope to be free of serious illness and would gladly trade a lifetime of healthcare taxation for the option of paying for, or better yet, not paying for personal healthcare. Aside of this, government institutions and programs are patently impersonal and not ideal for the kind of nurturing needed in these types of institutions. Regardless, people who use social services will ultimately pay for them, but the direct method of local taxation and private payment is generally more acceptable, as those who participate can see the benefit of their funding directly. Everyone ought to be entitled to getting what they pay for.2005/12/2Many people believe that scientific research should be carried out and controlled by the governments rather than private companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?Many people believe that scientific research should be carried out and controlled by the government rather than private companies. The results of adopting such a policy however, are difficult to anticipate. While this idea may have some benefits in theory, it may be unadvisable to bring into reality.One can observe many issues emerging from privately funded research. The key motivator for major research organizations is often monetary profit, which they pursue by seeking to develop new industrial materials, new technology, and most recently even the development of new medicine has become an avenue for profit. This system however, often places making profit above the benefit of the public. These research organizations will withhold new technologies, and keep private information that might help competing organizations make a breakthrough. Placing control of this research in the hands of governments might alleviate some problems but certainly not all of them.The wisdom of turning this research over to government organizations however is debatable. While the primary motivator of private organizations is obviously profit, government organizations may pursue different objectives. A government organization that developed medicine would never be withheld from a needy public while on the other hand it could very well pursue research completely driven by self interest instead of that of the public. Moreover, government organizations might ultimately lack the funding and ability to attract sufficiently talented individuals. The levels of individuality and quality that can be attained by private organizations can often be lacking in government organizations.While the government can become more interested in controlling the populace rather than serving it, private companies in their pursuit of profits are ultimately forced to operate in the interest of the public, if not always in its best interest. With regard to this arrangement, the existent one may be the best.2004年4月24日学术类大作文Today, the high sales of popular consumer goods reflect the power of the advertising, not the real needs of the whole society in which they are sold. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion?Some posit that the high sales of popular consumer goods reflect the increasing power of advertisement and not the actual needs of the society to which they are sold. However, adopting such a stance may more reflect a distaste for the current surge in advertising rather than the actual situation.There is, in fact, a direct relationship between the sales of a product or service and advertisement related to that product. Advertisement campaigns have been known to thrust virtually unknown products and organizations into the public eye and the seat of economic success. Notoriety combined with availability can produce a demand for just about anything, successful ad campaigns have even launched people from anonymity to celebrity. Advertisement is a powerful tool, and a business that is growing ever more complex, subtle, and effective. One should be careful however not to overstate the ability of the tail to wag the dog.While advertisement can virtually create demand out of thin air, it cannot endow people with the ability to purchase products. Advertisement has not changed the amount of money that people posses, but what they do with it. More than increasing advertisement, the increased amount of extra funds available to the individual citizen is responsible for the increase in consumption. The role of advertisement is simply to reorient priorities. Rather than saving this money, or making investments with some foreseeable future return, advertisement gently encourages individuals to invest their money differently, in popular goods, in the sheer unconscious support of consumerism.Like a depressive over-eater trying to fill a hole in his life with food, an emptiness festering in our modern society begs to be filled with something. For those with extra funds, consumption is the perfect answer. Advertisement may hasten this natural process, but in no way creates it.*note: the tail wagging the dog-a term which refers to media hype creating or controlling popular beliefs. A dog is supposed to control (wag) its tail and not the other way around, but when the media or a small organization is able to control public opinion by controlling or even creating information, its as though the tail is wagging the dog.2004年3月13日学术类大作文Motorized flight has changed our life so much; no other inventions have such an important impact on our lives. To what extent do you agree or disagree?Motorized flight has changed the lives of the worlds people greatly some believe that no other invention has had such a great impact in the history of man. There are strong arguments for both those who agree with this statement and those who do not. While a very visible invention, it is certainly not the most important.The invention of motorized flight and its development into todays systems of public and private transportation as well as flying war vehicles has had and almost immeasurable impact on history and the world itself. One could make a strong argument that motorized flight .is the most significant distinction between nations of the past and those of today. While techniques and knowledge in the fields of medicine, architecture and chemistry may have at one time exceeded those of present societies, no other people or nation of the past is known to have mastered the skies as modern man has.It is easy however to overstate the actual importance of this discovery. Without radio, radar, global positioning technology, satellites, new fuels, polymers and building materials modern flight as we know it would not be possible. Computer technology currently is inseparable from modern flight technology and indeed in many ways makes it possible. Aside from this, many inventions do not realize their full potential immediately upon their discovery. The decoding of the human genome, animal cloning, and nuclear physics are just beginning to show their true importance, which may not be ultimately realized for many years yet to come.The globalization taking place in our world would be impossible without motorized flight, and so its importance cannot be understated. Motorized flight itself however would not be possible without the hundreds of other inventions leading up to it and their importance cannot be overlooked either.2005/02/05Food can be produced much more cheaply today because of improved facilities and better machinery. However, some of the methods may be dangerous to human health, and may have negative effects on local community. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Food can be produced much more cheaply today because of improved techniques and facilities and better machinery. Some of these methods however may be dangerous to human health and may have negative effects on local communities. The importance of this impact has been debated by many but not enough has been done to address these emerging problems.When the issue of food production management is first raised, many will immediately point out the legions of starving nations in the world, the lack of sufficient food, the poverty induced starvation and such. This seems to imply some justification for the adoption of new methods of food production and the sacrifice of high standards of safety and quality. Bringing food to those who need it is a noble cause, and indeed should be one of the primary concerns of so-called developed and developing countries. Food management and distribution are however much greater issues than new methods of food production.There is no lack of food in the world. Food that would feed those who are starving goes instead in to the bellies of cows and other livestock that consume enough in their lifetimes to feed hundreds. Restaurants prepare more food than their customers could ever consume, food in one part of the world goes into the garbage while people in another starve to death. The primary drive behind new methods of food production is not service of the public, but comes from private companies and farmers hoping to secure larger profits by adopting more efficient and less expensive methods. Like death and taxes, food is the great leveler of all mankind. Everyone needs to eat, and the quality and safety of that food determines the quality of our lives. Steps must be taken to ensure that standards are created and rigorously enforced. 2005/10/22The speeding up of life in many areas such as travel and communication has negative effects on society at all levels - individual, national and global. To what extent do you agree or disagree?In the last century the pace of life all over the globe has increased greatly, not the least in the areas of travel and communication. Some maintain that this increase has been to the detriment of society at all levels, individual, national, and global. The real impact of this phenomenon is difficult to measure at best but many markedly negative effects can be seen.Technology developed in the most recent century has opened the doors to all sorts of social phenomenon and changed the lives and mindset of people all across the globe. This development stretches out from those which have been come to known as developed cultures like a hand, to envelop the world and sink its fingers into the recesses of every location. In many cases it has brought enlightenment, medical advancement, and sorely needed new technology for the health and welfare of the societies it has touched. It has also brought the taint that stains all of developed countries.Rampant corruption, environmental destruction, the poison of soulless western civilization, the glacial erasure of any culture bearing a shred of historical or interpersonal value are all the hallmarks of globalization and so-called progress and development. Nearly the entire world is careening down an empty road, chasing an invisible dream, going ever faster because they cant find a destination. The proof of the folly of this course lies in the fact that it cannot be controlled, altered or reversed. If the earth is our ship in this universe, we are tearing up wood for fuel to keep it moving.The pursuit of individual wealth has divided communities, spouses and even siblings, people today unite only under the flag of war, and then in hopes of getting more for themselves indirectly. One can only hope that humanity is a renewable resource. 2004年2月14日学术类大作文People have shown their selfishness and greed in modern society. Therefore, some people would like to go back to those traditional societies. To what extent do you agree or disagree? The selfishness and greed rampant in modern society has lead many to wish for a return to traditional society, which they believe to be free of these problems, or at least have a lower incidence of them. The ultimate benefit, as well as the feasibility of such an idea is hard to estimate, and deserve closer consideration. The first premise of this problem is that traditional society had less selfishness and greed than our current one, but this may or may not be true. Modern society has torn loose the fabric of community, so that neighbors may live next to one another for years without exchanging a single word; pedestrians may share a train car, never to see each other again. The impact of this phenomenon on society is to complet