IELTSNetwork.com

rairaichan0323 wrote: Some people work for the same organization all their working life. Others think that it is better to work for different organizations. Discuss both these views and give you own opinion.


In a modern society, adolescents often alter their job easily. While some people would argue that employees should work for the one company all their working life, many others would contend that working for dissimilar businesses is favorable for representatives. These points of views will be discussed before arriving at a satisfactory outcome.

On the one hand, some people are of the opinion that they should work at the same company until they retire. A typical example of this is Japanese companies which encourage their staff to remain in the same job for their whole career. It is argued that they completely comprehend the system of the company and also they can present their loyalty to the organization. Thus, it is clear why many people gravitate towards this point of view.

On the other hand, many argue that people should work for different associations in order to seek further development. To illustrate, in Hong Kong young people often change their career in order to gain more working experience and they employ past valuable experience on their present job. Therefore, it is good for the company to employ such workers who have obtained rich knowledge. After analyzing these facts, it is certainly clear why many support this claim.

By way of conclusion, there are strong arguments on both sides. However, after analyzing these points of views, it is clear that staff’s loyalty is a significant key for the successful company. Therefore, I believe that it seems highly advisable for the companies to motivate juveniles to remain working at the same firm.

rairaichan0323 wrote: It is the government’s responsibility to look after people with problems such as the unemployed and the homeless. Do you agree or disagree?

In a contemporary society, citizens have an obligation to pay taxes to the administration. the government can employ those revenues to provide services to the inhabitants. It is agreed that the local council has a duty to take care of dwellers with difficulties. This argument will be analyzed by looking at how the local council concerns those individuals who have problems can maintain the order of society and improve citizens’ living standards.

First of all, it is an undeniable fact that authority has a responsibility to maintain social order by offering assistance to people with issues. For instance, recently there have been several demonstrations in Hong Kong due to the exorbitant price of housing. This makes it clear that such unsatisfied feelings among the citizens may induce antisocial revolution and considerable influence on the economy. As this shows, in order to maintain stable living circumstances, the local council has an onus to give assistance to those people who are struggling.

Secondly and even more importantly, if the government aids those helpless citizens, it could improve residents’ living standard generally. To illustrate, the Hong Kong council has organized some associations to assist unemployed people to look for work or arrange for homeless people to be accommodated in public houses. Thus, obtaining support from the administration could improve the standard of living for poor people. It is obvious from this that the government has an obligation to help individuals out of destitution.

By way of conclusion, following this look at how the administration can stabilize social order and mend dwellers’ living standard, it has been proven that it indeed has a duty to take care of individuals with difficulties. Also, I believe that it seems highly advisable for the local council to establish more useful measures to assist people.

rairaichan0323 wrote: Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems. To what extend do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think might be effective?

Traffic and contamination issues are continuously growing among the majority of societies. Some people contend that raising the price of petrol is the greatest way to settle these matters. It is disagreed that such a policy would not resolve these problems. This essay will look at how government encouragement can address these difficulties.

Firstly, it is an undeniable fact that an adaptable working (<--Working what? And adaptable petrol price? An adaptable policy? 'working' is a verb, you need a noun here, too.) can lower the demands of traffic as the workers will start to their jobs at dissimilar times. For instance, some organizations in Hong Kong have their workers commence work at different times even though they are working in the same firm. This makes it clear that the demand for transport during rush hour will decrease dramatically. As this shows, flexible working hours will effectively diminish the traffic problem.

Secondly and even more importantly, the local council should encourage people to use public transport instead of driving by themselves. To illustrate, the Japan government supports their staff's transport fees if they travel to work by public transport. Thus, company members prefer to go to work by public transport. It is obvious from this that encouragement can effectively reduce the burden of traffic and also lower the amount of carbon dioxide which is produced by cars.

By way of conclusion, following this look at how adaptable working hours and government support can tackle the traffic and contamination matters, it is proven that increasing the price of petrol is not the best way to address these issues. Also, it seems highly advisable for the government to improve public awareness about the drawbacks of the growing traffic and pollution problems.