Kho Writing T2 · Band 8.0 Essays

International sporting events have become increasingly common in recent decades. While some people reckon that host countries might have to deal with a sudden surge in crime or involve themselves in an exhausting preparation process, more importantly I believe they can take the opportunity to boost tourism.

To begin with, although events such as these are a great opportunity for countries to gain global exposure, there are present significant challenges. Firstly, records have shown that there is a twofold increase in crimes such as prostitution and petty theft when a country organises an event such as the World Cup or the Olympics. Furthermore, the process of preparing for these events is often demanding. For the World Cup 2014, it took Brazil five years to revitalise its cities and construct various facilities including stadiums and indoor athletics arenas to meet the world-class standard set by FIFA.

On the other hand, I am of the opinion that international sporting games can potentially stimulate the tourism sector. By being the host, a country is able to attract a large array of athletes and their supporters from all around the world. This sudden increase in visitors will likely proliferate the sales of products and services such as accommodation and transportation within the period of the events. In the longer term, it is a great chance for the host nations to promote their culture on a global stage. For example, since the pictures of beautifully garnished Vietnamese dishes made headlines during the SEA Games in 2003, Vietnam has been branded as the “Kitchen of the world” and a must visit destination for global food lovers. This obviously does wonders for the Vietnamese economy.

In conclusion, although sports events come at the expense of a few immediate problems, the benefits of boosted gross sales and cultural promotion are of greater significance. In my opinion, host nations can also consider the option of sharing an event with a neighboring country to spread the risk and still enjoy the lucrative long term benefits.

People have different views concerning the importance of studying food science and cooking at educational institutions. While some argue that students should focus on key subjects that can boost their career prospects, I believe culinary courses are of paramount significance in leading a healthy and independent lifestyle.

On the one hand, the core disciplines standard at most schools are imperative for one’s future career. Academic subjects such as math and literature can provide an individual with the foundational knowledge to smoothly transit into a professional working environment. For example, logical thinking acquired during math lessons and critical thinking fostered by literature are prerequisites to nuanced problem-solving skills. Recent research has indicated that the average income of those with the abovementioned competencies is higher than that of unskilled laborers and the general workforce. Therefore, a successful career is a realistic possibility when one focuses diligently on the important subjects at school.

On the other hand, possessing a solid understanding of food and cooking can ensure not only general well-being but also serve as a basic survival skill. First and foremost, schoolers often fail to attend to nutrition in their daily meals, which likely leads to unhealthy eating habits. Conditions caused by those occupations such as malnutrition and obesity are detrimental to the healthy growth of the younger generation. Secondly, food preparation is useful for living independently. Students who are proficient with culinary skills will be more capable of adjusting to living on their own. Indeed, food science and cooking could enable them to modify their dietary patterns to live healthier without either readily available dishes at homes or processed foods at convenience stores.

In conclusion, while some advocate prioritizing traditional school curriculums based on academic subjects, I believe imparting a knowledge of nutrition and food preparation generates a great sense of independence and develops healthy eating habits for graduates. Thus, courses about food should be added to the school curriculum.

It is true that antisocial and disrespectful behavior in society has been on the rise recently. This trend might be attributed to problems in one’s life, but a joint effort by both governments and individuals can reverse the trend.

Personal issues and low self-esteem are some of the factors that can contribute greatly to an inconsiderate behaviour. First, personal problems such as work disputes or relationship conflicts could lead to prolonged stress. This potentially provokes bitterness and frustration, which might subsequently be vented on others. In addition, low self-esteem is another cause, which usually stems from family problems or school bullying. Indeed, individuals with a history of being neglected by their families or abused by their friends tend to be insecure, unconfident and have little to no self respect. As a result, they tend to exhibit the same abusive behavior that was once bestowed upon them toward others in order to mask their own insecurities.

In spite of the causes mentioned above, there are viable solutions and appropriate adjustments to improve the situation. First, people could set for themselves some conversation standards or develop a rudeness filter to avoid lashing out at others uncontrollably. This strategy could guarantee a certain decency of behavior, as well as making them politer and more respectful. In addition, governments could allocate more resources into childcare programmes, thereby reducing abusive incidents. As a result, children’s self-esteem and confidence would be increased, making them well mannered members of society.

In conclusion, although personal issues and long-term oppression could negatively impact daily attitudes, solutions including better long-term childcare or self-discipline strategies would promote appropriate manners. In my opinion, the situation would be improved greatly within the next 10 years if these ideas were implemented.

It is sometimes argued that parents can effectively plan their children’s free time activities thanks to their experience and maturity. However, I am of the opinion that letting them be more autonomous better nurtures their inborn talents.

On the one hand, parents are well-positioned to decide on the most productive leisure activities. This argument claims that parents are better equipped with the requisite knowledge acquired from parenting courses and online communities. On these platforms, they can learn about not only the educational impacts of various recreational activities but also how to organize them properly. For example, the Facebook group “We Trek” provides informative posts on the benefits of camping trips, a list of the necessary equipment and instructions pertaining to campsite set-up. By following professional instructions, parents can organize an effective camping session, simultaneously, ensure safety and an educational experience for their children.

On the other hand, I believe that freedom of choice enables children to develop their unique talents. The majority of young people opt for activities that fascinate them intrinsically, thus developing an individual interest that their guardians might overlook or disapprove of. Gaudi, the foremost proponent of the Catalan architectural school, was allowed to follow his own interests, exploring shapes and patterns in nature during his childhood. These observations later inspired extraordinary designs such as the Sagrada Familia that was inspired by and embraces the shape of an ant’s nest. Such a remarkable and precocious natural talent might have been inadvertently neglected, if his mother had guided his activities to facilitate a presumably safer and more secure career outside the humanities in medicine, law, or business.

In conclusion, although parents might be capable of making more informed selections, children should be made free to follow their own interests. In my opinion, parents ought to allow kids to juggle multiple roles in diverse settings to organically identify potential personal professional passions.

Many readers of the news have recently switched to online channels. While digital platforms might facilitate a smoother user experience for readers, I believe that this is a negative change considering the risks of unreliable information.

On the one hand, the prevalence of news on the Internet can be attributed to a superior user experience. Indeed, news presented on websites or social networking sites can come in various forms including infographics and animated videos that enhance the clarity and readability of the information provided. Leading news corporations such as the BBC have also enabled visitors to customise the home page, allowing them to enjoy personalised content or to participate in real-time debates to voice their opinions. By contrast, all of this can hardly be accomplished in the limits prescribed by television broadcasts or the hard copies of conventionally printed newspapers.

On the other hand, advocates of traditional news channels maintain that online platforms should be held responsible for the widespread dissemination of misleading news. Unauthorised websites such as www.ontheverge.com and www.saveus.com have proactively bred baseless conspiracy theories related to the side-effects of vaccines. Some theorists falsely claim that vaccines contain a special type of nanochip capable of manipulating human thought for the sake of an imaginary and all-powerful ruling elite, thus convincing many less-discerning members of their audience to join the anti-vaccine movement. This has unfortunately resulted in thousands of children being unvaccinated, causing a rise in deadly and preventable diseases such as measles and whooping cough in the United States, Germany and the UK.

In conclusion, despite the legitimately improved experience provided by online news channels, I disapprove of news on the Internet due to the increased risk of misinformation. Governments should take resolute actions to regulate online news sources and sharing in virtual spaces.

Working longer hours is a growing tendency in society nowadays. The primary cause of this change is excessive workloads and the effects on one’s health and quality of life are decidedly detrimental.

The need to work additional hours often stems from increasing demand in the workplace. To keep up with competition in an increasingly globalised marketplace, employees are expected to assume a high volume of work, often with inadequate staff levels and support. This has resulted in employees having to work extra hours to compensate, which is exemplified clearly in IT-related sectors. A program developer in Vietnam generally spends an average of 10 hours at work per day integrating complicated software systems, which would not be necessary if he was accompanied by a colleague.

Extra office hours can adversely affect workers’ health, as well as their personal lives. First of all, working overtime can lead to a lack of sufficient rest, decrease in energy and eventually health conditions in extreme cases. This is illustrated in research conducted in Japanese white-collars workers, who have to sit in their offices for up to 14 hours, resulting in spinal injuries, arthritis and increased risk of strokes. In addition, as more time is spent at work, workers necessarily have less time for their loved ones, which can weaken bonds between family members and friends. As a result, this can generate a feeling of general dissatisfaction in individuals, potentially becoming a catalyst for stress and depression in the long run.

In conclusion, extended working hours are associated with increasing demands in the workplace, preventing employees from leading a healthy and balanced life. Therefore, I believe governments should enact laws that impose weekly overtime standards for corporations.

Many readers of the news have recently switched to online channels. While digital platforms might facilitate a smoother user experience for readers, I believe that this is a negative change considering the risks of unreliable information.

On the one hand, the prevalence of news on the Internet can be attributed to a superior user experience. Indeed, news presented on websites or social networking sites can come in various forms including infographics and animated videos that enhance the clarity and readability of the information provided. Leading news corporations such as the BBC have also enabled visitors to customise the home page, allowing them to enjoy personalised content or to participate in real-time debates to voice their opinions. By contrast, all of this can hardly be accomplished in the limits prescribed by television broadcasts or the hard copies of conventionally printed newspapers.

On the other hand, advocates of traditional news channels maintain that online platforms should be held responsible for the widespread dissemination of misleading news. Unauthorised websites such as www.ontheverge.com and www.saveus.com have proactively bred baseless conspiracy theories related to the side-effects of vaccines. Some theorists falsely claim that vaccines contain a special type of nanochip capable of manipulating human thought for the sake of an imaginary and all-powerful ruling elite, thus convincing many less-discerning members of their audience to join the anti-vaccine movement. This has unfortunately resulted in thousands of children being unvaccinated, causing a rise in deadly and preventable diseases such as measles and whooping cough in the United States, Germany and the UK.

In conclusion, despite the legitimately improved experience provided by online news channels, I disapprove of news on the Internet due to the increased risk of misinformation. Governments should take resolute actions to regulate online news sources and sharing in virtual spaces.

Expeditions to distant isolated destinations have been on the rise recently. While this can potentially benefit wildlife conservation programmes, I firmly contend that the development is disadvantageous overall considering the risks to the environment.

On the one hand, both scientific and touristic expeditions can help develop conservation programmes. Indeed, on-site scientific research conducted at Antarctica has successfully illuminated the mating habits of many nearly-extinct animal species such as the emperor penguins thanks to close observation of these species, driving initiatives to boost their fertility rate two fold. Meanwhile, tourists who visit remote destinations might learn about the damages of climate change, thus becoming intrinsically motivated to protect Earth’s fragile ecosystems from further degradation. For example, a campaign to preserve Himalayan bald eagles was initiated by two Swedish explorers on an expedition after they eye-witnessed eagle chicks dying of starvation on a far-flung mountain peak.

On the other hand, I believe the threat of pollution these activities pose must be highlighted. One obvious danger is oil spills from the cruise ships and other forms of transportation traveling to the remote observation sites. In 2007, a cruise boat heading to the South Pole struck an iceberg and sank to the ocean floor, causing a diesel fuel spill that covered 25 square kilometers. Despite enormous efforts from the international community, the disaster claimed the lives of thousands of sea creatures including many rare marine birds in less than two weeks. It also resulted in permanent damage to the Antarctic fauna, algae and plankton, which are the foundation of the local food chain, disturbing the ecological balance across the entire continent and nearby waters.

In summary, although scientific research and intrepid tourism in remote areas might partly contribute to conservation breeding efforts, I am of the opinion that they pose more pressing existential threats to the environment and natural habitats. Therefore, a complete travel ban should be imposed by the United Nations to preserve the ecological and biodiversity of these unique environments.

Some people have proposed that a higher proportion of the national budget should be allocated to support those in need at hospitals. However, I believe healthy lifestyle promotion programs must be prioritised considering their perennial impact on society.

On the one hand, governmental support is critical to the recovery of patients whose treatment costs exceed their financial capacity. For example, the medical treatment process for a cancer patient includes numerous costly procedures, starting with the conduct of diagnostic tests, the use of prescribed medications, and ending with interpretation of the results and counselling. In Vietnam, the total sum of these medical and non-medical expenses can total over $50,000, which is unaffordable for the majority of Vietnamese working families. Therefore, to ensure proper treatment, the Vietnamese government must provide monetary support to these patients through insurance schemes or the Red Cross organisation.

On the other hand, health promotion and disease prevention initiatives can produce greater long-term social impact. Many of these initiatives, such as those executed by the WHO in Cambodia, have successfully provided locals with essential health information related to nutrition, along with the hygienic and cardiovascular benefits of regular exercise. As the number of Cambodians who adopt healthy diets and preventive measures against diseases are on the rise, the rates for hospitalisation have witnessed a remarkable drop in recent years. Cambodia has, therefore, reduced financial demand for the construction of hospitals and clinics, allocating a greater proportion of a stretched budget to other critical sectors such as education and social equality.

In conclusion, although some patients might benefit from governmental financial aid, I opine that programs which promote a healthier lifestyle are of greater importance to society as a whole. In my opinion, governments should promulgate laws that require the participation and involvement of all political bodies to support these programs.

Some people applaud the prohibition of mobile phones in public spaces considering the possible disturbances resulting from notifications and bright screens. However, I believe mobile phones should be allowed in order to enable convenience for individuals at public facilities.

On the one hand, other members of the public at places such as libraries, shops and public transport might find sounds and the light from phones annoying. For instance, readers at a library can be distracted by disrespectful phone users who switch on the ringtone of incoming calls or through notification noises, preventing them from devoting their full time to research and reading. A related and common instance would be that a traveler’s short nap on a bus or night train might be interrupted by the bright lights emanating from smartphone screens.

On the other hand, I believe that handheld devices can greatly improve user experience. For example, a bus journey is less tiring when the rider can enjoy some relaxing music to relieve stress on his phone by using his earphones, avoiding the noise of traffic and immersing himself in the healing sounds of nature. Another great example is the use of shopping applications such as VinID, an application recently developed by the Vietnamese retail giant Vinmart+. Thise app enables shoppers to not only precisely locate their desired items in vast supermalls but also to use self-service checkout without needing to wait in seemingly endless queues during peak shopping hours.

In conclusion, although the use of phones might be a distraction in public spaces, I am of the opinion that the total experience of users in public places is more important. Therefore, service operators should invest more in researching user behavior to develop more useful apps.