雅思8到9分精品范文六篇
Q1. Some people think that the qualities that a person need to become successful in today’s world cannot be learnt in the universities or other academic institutions. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Model Answer
By Simon. H. Yu
Can we learn all the qualities to become successful in life within our academic environment? I would like to make a point that the qualities a person needs to become successful are often found outside the academic arena.
First of all, even before we have reached mature entry age for university, we have learnt countless qualities from our family, friends and social situations. These qualities are social skills, communication, negotiation, speaking and listening skills. Are these skills not the foundation of being a successful person in today?s world? (反问句增强SFL)
Qualities in a successful person can be intelligence, empathy, knowledge, sense of humour, diligence. The list is large. Too large to assign the learning of them to only universities or other academic institutions. Certainly, the academic arena can help identify a persons talents and build their qualities. However, it should be up to the student to have the ability to comprehend what qualities he/she already has, and how he or she can build them within university. Academic learning can help mature one?s qualities, but I do not agree they are entirely learnt within this area.
In today?s world, we have the capacity to meet more people than ever before. New qualities are needed in people such as superior communication skills. Not only in the I.T realm, but in cross cultural communication. Also needed are qualities such as emotional intelligence, or …EQ?. It is said that this quality is learned at a very early age, without the aid of formal education, and I feel it is evidence to help back up my opinion.
Perhaps in the past, qualities needed for life had to be learnt within the academic arena, but today, as we lead increasingly social lives, it is the social arena where many qualities can be learnt and where success can also be found.
Q2. It is inevitable that as technology develops so traditional cultures must be lost. Technology and tradition are incompatible – you cannot have both together.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Model Answer
By Simon. H. Yu
As modern technology plays an increasing role in our lives, many people have begun to question whether this means the end of many, most, or even all, traditions that have developed over centuries, since they think that technology and tradition are incompatible. As far as I am concerned, it depends on what the traditions are and how the technology is used. I certainly do not believe that the loss of traditions is unavoidable.
One tradition that appears across most of the world?s cul tures is that of religion. Although there is a general decline in religion in the Western world, this is not so of the world as a whole. As science and technology continue to provide answers to many age-old questions, people across the globe still question whether science can answer everything. Many people are attracted by the concept that our lives have a more spiritual meaning.
On the other hand, as science and technology provide better solutions to problems that our ancestors faced, certain aspects of traditional life do disappear. If we take the example of farming, we can see how increased mechanization allows farmers to cultivate bigger farms using far less labor. The effect on people?s lives, communities and the economy has been dramatic. It has become possible for the majority of people in many countries to live in cities, their food supply needs served by a relatively small rural population.
Some traditions have simply developed as technology has developed. The traditional British pub is still a place where people can go and enjoy a drink, some food and chat with friends. Pubs have taken on board many technological developments – including better methods of storing food and drink, and the provision and entertainment (e.g. large screen to show football matches).
In conclusion, the question of whether traditions enable to survive the development of science and technology depends on how people perceive the benefits of each and whether traditions can be adapted. Whilst there are examples of incompatibility, this is certainly not always the case.
Q3. Many people consider nuclear technology to be beneficial whilst others consider that its disadvantages far outweigh any of its advantage.
What’s your opinion on this issue? Give reasons for your an swer.
Model Answer
By Simon. H. Yu
The advent of nuclear technology is one of the most important developments in modern history. It was originally conceived as a source of energy and military might. Since the end of Second World War, there has been a debate as to whether the advantages of this technology outweigh its disadvantages.
Nuclear weapons formed the backbones of military power during the Cold War and helped prevent direct conflict between the two groups (NATO & WTO). Since the end of this ideological conflict, the numbers of such weapons has been greatly reduced. However, there is a fear of indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons by so-called …rogue states? or terrorists. Most of the world?s states have voluntarily agreed not to develop them or to help other countries to do so, throng signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Government agencies around the world monitor nuclear weapons and the special materials (e.g. uranium) needed to make them in order to prevent them being acquired.
The second area where nuclear technology has been used is in energy generation. It is cheap to generate and causes little damage to the environment. However, there are three main objections to this energy source. Firstly, though the cost of actual generation is lower, the cost grows enormously once you include the cost of constructing, safeguarding and reparable damage. The accident at Chernobyl is the most obvious example. Thirdly, the waste radioactive material, including not only the uranium, but also water and even the clothes used by power station personnel, must be disposed of. Many people suggest that we should shift the money we spend on nuclear energy to other, cleaner and renewable energy sources, such as waved power and wind power.
The development of nuclear technology has led to related developments in other scientific areas, the most obvious example being medicine. For example, radiation treatments are used in fight against cancer. In the future, we may need to rely on nuclear power for space exploration, as solar power may not be sufficient. Nuclear technology has also led to research into electrons, protons and molecules, which we are only just beginning to understand.
Personally,I am optimistic that the days of a global nuclear war have passed. The use of individual nuclear weapons by dictators or fanatics remains a threat and we must trust the major countries of the world to ensure that such incidents do not occur. This leaves the peaceful use of the nuclear technology. I think that as an energy source it has proven too expensive, too risky, and indeed too controversial. Having said that, there may be situation where nuclear energy is
appropriate energy source, so a limited number of power stations may be necessary. We cannot guess at what applications nuclear technology may have in the future, so I do not believe we should stop its development.
Q4. People receive a lot of information from news reports presented by journalists. However, some people claim that we cannot believe the news that we are presented with. What is your opinion on the issue?
In addition, what qualities do you think journalists should have?
Model Answer
By Simon. H. Yu
It has been said that we live in the information age. Most people in the world can receive information about events far from where they live, by radio, TV and the Internet. How much can we really trust this information and what qualities should the people who give us the information have?
One of the first things that people need to consider when deciding whether or not to believe news stories is the source. Certain news organizations have reputations for presenting the news reasonably objectively, whereas others are obviously biased or under the control of governments or organizations which seek to manipulate the media. If a news organization (almost) invariably supports or opposes a government or group, its objectivity should be called into question.
A more difficult thing that recipients of information need to do it not so much separate fact from fiction, but fact from opinion. In an age when people can easily take quality photographs with cheap cameras and spy satellites can provide evidence from many miles above the earth, it has become hard to deny an accident has happened or other facts. Rather than deny clear facts, which would only reduce the credibility of journalists and news providers, these same journalists and news organizations seek to influence us with allegations and opinions. These allegations and opinions are often not clearly separated from the facts, which can lead to the spread of misinformation.
Journalists should be reasonably objective, though complete objectivity will be difficult achieve, as everyone has their own opinion and standpoints. If a journalist clearly takes a side on an issue, but states this openly, people can decide whether to accept the ideas or not, knowing that the opinion is slanted. Journalists need to be investigative, seeking out information and opinion to readers, listeners and viewers. They also need to be very good with words, expressing their exact meaning, often succinctly.
Generally, I think that we can believe the facts we are presented with, but the problem is when these facts become mixed with allegations and opinions, particularly when those allegations and opinions are not clearly identified as such but are presented as facts in themselves.
Q5. Currently, it is still very few women hold key positions. How could society help women to achieve such positions?
Discuss the problems, give your opinions and provide possible solutions.
Model Answer
By Simon. H. Yu
It is still unusual for many women to hold high positions in politics and business despite the fact that most societies believe that sex equality is correct. I would like to suggest a few ways in which the situation could be improved.
To do this, we need to look at why women do not already reach high positions. One clear reason is that many men have sexist attitudes towards women, believing them to be inferior. To be fair, most men are hardly awa re that they hold such attitudes. They blurt out sentences like “That job isn?t really suitable for a woman”, without realizing they are being sexist. Some people think that punishing men, or embarrassing them, for making such statements would work. I am not convinced. I think a more gentle approach, point out that women can do any job, would be more effective.
The attitude of many men stems from the biological fact that women give birth and naturally take more responsibility for looking after a baby during its first few months. This can lead to an interruption of a woman?s career. This is tough on women competing for higher positions with men. Several things can be done, and indeed been done in Britain and other countries. Companies can provide facilities for babies at the workplace, allowing a mother easy access to her child with minimal disturbance of the work routine. Thus mothers can get on with their careers whilst not sacrificing the maternal bond with their babies. Recent legislation in the UK allows fathers to take paternity leave, which allows a mother to go to work.
Another reason that women often fail to get to the top is that from childhood they are brought up to believe they should do certain jobs and not appear …bossy?. Girls who show signs of being as ambitious and career-minded as men often find themselves subjected to ridicule. Stopping this and ensuring that children of both genders are treated equally, without preconceived ideas of what a …woman? should be, will help a lot.
Many people believe that one way forward is to have quota for women in top positions. This, however, has met with opposition from me (who claim that the best person should get the top jobs) and by women (who do want to be part of a quota, but want to be promoted on their merits). I
think that the measures I have outlined above can succeed, though admittedly only in the long-term. It will be a while until women rise through the ranks to make a much higher proportion of top jobs in politics and business.
Q6. Children brought up in families with less money are better prepared for life than those from wealthy families.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Model Answer
By Simon. H. Yu
One of the main reasons that most parents aim to make money is to provide their children with the best possible start in life. However, many people question whether children raised in wealthier families are really much better of than those brought up in less wealthy ones. I think that most parents? beliefs are well-founded and that children from better-off families are better prepared for life.
The main argument presented by those who think children from wealthier families might not be better prepared for life is that such children often have things provided for them without having to earn them. This encourages the children to believe that getting things in life is easy, which is often not the case. On the contrary, it is claimed, children raised in less wealthy families learn that things need to be earned and that choices need to be made when there is not enough money for everything.
Whilst this may be true, it is clear that in most societies wealthier parents enable to buy better educations for their children. It is hard to disagree with the suggestion that going to a better school gives a child a better chance at getting admitted to a better university and consequently provides them with a better chance of finding a top job in the future. A brief glance at the biographies of the world?s business and political leaders is sufficient to demonstrate this.
On the whole, I believe that children from wealthier families are indeed better prepared for life than those from less wealthy ones. Whilst there are examples of children from wealthy families that have not succeeded in life and cases of children from less well-off backgrounds becoming extraordinary, these are still not the general rule.