Câu hỏi:

19/08/2025 587

Some cities create housing areas by providing taller buildings. Others create housing by building houses on a wider area of land. Which solution is better?

Xem lời giải

Câu hỏi trong đề: 2000 câu trắc nghiệm tổng hợp Tiếng Anh 2025 có đáp án !!

Bắt đầu thi

Quảng cáo

Trả lời:

Giải bởi Vietjack

Sample 1:

In this day and age, increasing attention is being directed towards the question of whether residential areas should be developed through the construction of apartments or ground-level houses. While there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question of sustainable urban growth, personally, I believe that both options have their own merits and can be implemented by authorities depending on specific situations.

On one hand, some cities choose to build taller buildings to fit more people, which has its own benefits. Firstly, it allows cities to maximize land use efficiency, particularly in densely populated urban areas where space is limited. In fact, by going vertical, cities can accommodate more residents, businesses, and amenities within a smaller footprint, thereby reducing urban sprawl and preserving natural landscapes. For example, Hong Kong exemplifies efficient land use through vertical development due to its high population density and limited space. Secondly, tall buildings can serve as iconic landmarks that define a city's skyline and contribute to its identity and reputation on a global scale. Architectural marvels such as the Burj Khalifa in Dubai or the Empire State Building in New York City not only attract tourists but also symbolize economic prowess and innovation.

On the other hand, some cities have decided to spread out by building on wider areas of land, which also comes with its own advantages. First of all, sprawling cities have more room for green spaces, parks, and recreational facilities, which can enhance the quality of life and promote physical and mental well-being among residents. Singapore, known as "A City in a Garden," showcases the successful integration of extensive green spaces throughout its urban landscape, including iconic attractions like Gardens by the Bay, contributing to improved quality of life by regulating temperature, reducing pollution, and promoting physical and mental well-being for residents. Additionally, horizontal development allows for more diverse housing options, catering to a broader range of socioeconomic backgrounds. With lower population densities, traffic congestion and air pollution may be less severe, and public services such as schools, hospitals, and utilities may be more easily accessible to residents.

In conclusion, while both vertical and horizontal development strategies have their merits, the choice between them should be made based on careful consideration of factors such as population density, land availability, environmental impact, and community needs.

Sample 2:

Many cities today are expanding upwards to accommodate surging urban populations. In my opinion, this can help preserve nearby land for other uses and is a better solution than encouraging urban sprawl.

Some would argue that tall cities present challenges for inhabitants and a spread-out city offers better quality of life. Condensed urban areas with lots of tall apartment blocks, like in New York City or Shanghai, are famously difficult to live in due to the effects of overcrowding on sanitation, safety, and traffic conditions. In contrast, decentralised cities like Los Angeles and Nashville allow for the development of unique individual neighborhoods, more space for residential construction and a reduction of the urban issues listed above. Individuals living in these cities often report greater feelings of satisfaction and many ‘transplants’ move to such cities because of the better living standards.

However, those in favour of taller buildings can logically point out the resultant benefits for the area around a city. It is often hard to check the growth of economically important cities and that can lead to massive urban sprawl, as is in the case around Mexico City and Tokyo. By building more skyscrapers, the surrounding area can be preserved or used in another way. Pristine natural lands can be designated as national parks. If the city requires more food to feed its population, there could be proximately located farms with fast delivery times. This surplus land could also be turned into quiet suburban towns to give residents the choice of raising a family outside the city and still earning a good wage and having easy access to the cultural benefits of large metropolises.

In conclusion, horizontal cities facilitate some positive living conditions, but taller cities make more sense in the modern world. It is, nonetheless, important to strike a balance and mitigate the issues caused by growing urban populations with quality infrastructure.

Sample 3:

Rapid urbanization has been a global phenomenon for long, which has caused a serious concern over housing expansion. While some cities tackle this by constructing taller buildings, expanding the area for housing is what other cities adopt. This essay will discuss both of these perspectives in city development before giving my final verdict.

Building housing areas with taller buildings will bring about certain benefits. The most obvious one is that this practice can solve the problem of land scarcity. As more and more people are flocking to cities, the land area required for housing is also ever-increasing. In this case, taller buildings emerge as an optimal remedy because they can accommodate a large number of dwellers yet take up a not too huge area. This can be exemplified by Manhattan in New York city where a multitude of tall apartments have been constructed to furnish this megacity with sufficient housing. Secondly, people living in tall buildings can have a more convenient life. It is because manifold city apartments incorporate various amenities ranging from supermarkets, playgrounds to gyms, pools or banks in the same building. With these services being within walking distance, city dwellers can enjoy different services without much difficulty.

Nevertheless, building houses on a wider area of land also offers considerable merits. To begin with, this city development direction correlates with a more comfortable life for the inhabitants. When growing in this way, the cities can provide houses with wider space, which means that city dwellers can have more privacy and build their houses in accordance with their preferences. For instance, Los Angeles has been expanded in this way, bringing higher living standards to its dwellers since these people can relish better privacy and design their own housing space like having gardens, building pools, making their lives much cozier and more satisfying. Furthermore, expanding housing areas serves as an antidote to overcrowded city centers. Should housing areas like tall apartments be concentrated on just the downtown area, the city center will be overwhelmed with people and other ensuing problems like traffic congestion, overload of public services namely electricity, healthcare and education. Therefore, building houses on a wider area will disperse the population density, augmenting the living quality as well as divesting city centers of the overcrowding issues.

In conclusion, both policies can prove their worth depending on specific circumstances of different cities. Hence, it is imperative that city planners should be flexible in deciding on what solutions to be put into practice for the sake of sustainable urban development.

Sample 4:

The idea of whether to construct a city vertically with skyscrapers or have a horizontal expansion has always been a thorny dilemma. From my perspective, despite several merits that the latter model can offer, cities with vertical construction development prove to bring more significant benefits.

Advocates of horizontal cities often cite the space and privacy of detached houses as solid examples of the great experience that a lateral expansion can offer. When it comes to space, separate dwellings bring along with them distinct amenities such as a lush garden for nature lovers or a spacious yard that perfectly serves the households in need of a playground for their children. Besides, privacy seekers certainly favor separate houses over apartments in a high-rise building due to less noise disturbance from neighbors next door or even upstairs. However, given the burgeoning population in urban areas nowadays, hardly any city can provide enough space for building houses. Even with the policy to expand current land to the suburbs, such extension may never meet the ever-increasing demand for accommodation in metropolises. On top of that, living in a dispersed city is tantamount to more travelling by private vehicles, which will compound the air contamination and trigger more respiratory diseases among city dwellers.

The alternative of erecting multi-storey buildings does not just mitigate the problems arising from horizontally constructed cities, it also brings many significant benefits. Firstly, high-rise buildings prove an optimal solution to the dearth of land to accommodate the acceleration of urban population. One skyscraper which can provide dwellings for hundreds of residents occupies only a fraction of the land that would otherwise be used to erect houses for the same number of people. In addition, living in a complex equipped with myriad facilities such as offices, department stores, and recreational centers will considerably lessen travelling necessities. This not only helps reduce the volume of traffic in the city, and thus alleviating air pollution, but also offers immense convenience to the dwellers as they can get everything within walking distance of one building. As for young adults on a tight schedule, this option seems far more favorable than the idea of living in a house.

In conclusion, although some people may prefer to live in houses due to a number of advantages,

tall buildings have much more to offer, from addressing some of the most pressing problems in urban areas to creating more convenience for the residents.

Sample 5:

While the government in a number of cities decide to construct high-rise buildings to provide housing for their citizens, that in other cities expand their housing areas horizontally. In my opinion, building a vertical city is a better option because it makes better use of land, a limited resource on the planet, and it is also more eco-friendly than a horizontal one.

A vertical city can better optimize land use because land on earth will not grow any bigger, while the human population is ever-increasing. If tall apartments are erected and chosen as a place of residence, a unit of land can accommodate a larger number of residents. For instance, instead of allocating 100 miles square of land for the construction of houses for a population of only 100 households, the government can provide accommodation for ten times as many when constructing a ten-story apartment. Then, more land can be available for other purposes, such as cultivating crops to meet the growing food demands or expanding streets to alleviate traffic congestion, which can address critical issues associated with overpopulation.

Meanwhile, housing areas enlarged in a horizontal direction place a high pressure on the environment and people’s life. As a result of the increasing population of humans, wildlands may be encroached to make room for residential areas. For example, in Brazil, a major part of forests is cleared to build more houses for citizens, which not only endangers wildlife but also puts human civilization at higher risk of natural disasters. With narrowed forests, floods and droughts have taken place more often, damaging agriculture, the economy and other important sectors of this country.

In conclusion, employing the same area of land, vertical cities can house more citizens than horizontal cities which are not only environmentally damaging but also unsustainable in the long run. Personally, municipal leaders should develop their city in a vertical way as soon as possible.

Sample 6:

Creating good housing areas has always been a major concern for urban planners. Some cities build taller buildings to accommodate their growing population, while others opt to spread their housing areas out horizontally. This essay will explore the advantages of both approaches to decide which one is more appropriate.

Expanding vertically is a popular choice in many cities for there is little impact on the surrounding areas. Many cities nowadays are surrounded by farmland. If we choose the second solution, there will be an expansion of urban areas, which means agricultural land will have to be removed or replaced. However, these areas are responsible for food production and provision for the region around them, including the city itself, meaning that there could be problems with food security.

The second choice, on the other hand, also has its advantages. Building higher buildings will certainly increase the population density, which will put a burden on the existing infrastructure of the city. As more people move to these housing areas, roadways will be more and more crowded. Public transport systems will also be under more pressure. Take Hanoi as an example. In recent years, when an increased number of people relocated to the city for better job opportunities, many new apartment blocks, invariably close to the city center, were built to meet the housing needs. As a result, the traffic problem is exacerbated, and buses are always packed with passengers.

In my view, the latter approach to urban planning makes more logical sense. Ensuring food security is possible through other means and can be done by replacing the lost farmland with vertical farming, a solution Singapore has successfully implemented. This is much cheaper than building more and wider roads, which is almost impossible since that would mean the city has to be rebuilt from the ground up.

In conclusion, while building taller buildings does not influence agriculture, it creates several problems that are difficult to solve. Therefore, building houses across a wider area of land, in my opinion, seems more sensible.

Sample 7:

While authorities in some urban centers opt to erect skyscrapers to provide housing for their populace, others opt to expand residential zones horizontally. From my perspective, erecting a vertical city presents a superior choice as it optimizes land usage, a finite resource on our planet, and is also more environmentally friendly compared to horizontal expansion.

A vertical metropolis can enhance land utilization effectively because terrestrial space cannot expand, whereas the human populace is ever burgeoning. Opting for towering apartment complexes as habitation can accommodate a larger populace per unit of land. For example, instead of earmarking 100 square miles of land for housing 100 households, authorities can accommodate tenfold more by erecting a ten-story apartment complex. This frees up more land for diverse purposes, such as agricultural cultivation to meet escalating food demands or broadening thoroughfares to alleviate traffic congestion, thereby mitigating critical issues linked to overpopulation.

Conversely, horizontally sprawling residential zones exert significant pressure on the environment and human livelihoods. Due to burgeoning human numbers, wilderness areas may be encroached upon to make way for residential development. For instance, in Brazil, extensive swathes of forests are cleared to accommodate burgeoning urban populations, jeopardizing wildlife and exacerbating the risk of natural calamities. Diminished forests contribute to increased instances of floods and droughts, wreaking havoc on agriculture, the economy, and other vital sectors in the country.

In summation, utilizing the same land area, vertical cities can house a greater populace compared to horizontal counterparts, which not only inflict environmental harm but are also unsustainable in the long term. Personally, civic leaders should expedite the vertical development of their cities.

Sample 8:

To provide additional housing, some cities construct high-rise buildings while other cities develop land in extensive areas. In my opinion, the latter approach is the best way to solve the housing problem because land in wide areas is usually inexpensive. Besides, high-rise construction can be very costly.

Land in wide areas is relatively low-priced. Only the suburbs of a city have very large parcels of land available for real estate development, and these multi-hectare parcels are generally far cheaper than even one hectare of land in the city center. Lower land prices mean cheaper homes. For example, the average home value in the suburbs of Beijing is 17,000 yuan per square meter versus 58,000 yuan in the city center. Affordable homes are the key to solving the housing crisis because they are exactly what people with low incomes need.

In addition, the higher a building rises, the more expensive the construction is. It takes top architects, high technologies, and reinforcing steel to build residential skyscrapers, and these things can cost a great deal of money. That is to say, these skyscrapers are not where low-income households can afford to live. For instance, about one in four high-rise apartments in New York City sit unsold, while tens of thousands of citizens are homeless. In comparison, low-rise buildings are much cheaper to construct and therefore a much better solution to the affordable housing crisis.

In conclusion, building on extensive areas of land is the optimal method to address the housing problem. For one thing, land in these areas tends to be cheaper and, for another, high-rise construction can be very expensive.

Hot: 1000+ Đề thi cuối kì 1 file word cấu trúc mới 2025 Toán, Văn, Anh... lớp 1-12 (chỉ từ 60k). Tải ngay

Sách thầy cô Vietjack biên soạn:

Xem thêm »

CÂU HỎI HOT CÙNG CHỦ ĐỀ

Câu 1

The best way for governments to solve the problem of traffic congestion is by providing free public transport 24 hours per day, and seven days a week. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Xem đáp án

Lời giải

Sample 1:

Some argue that offering free bus and rail passes to all who need them is the best solution to traffic congestion. While this might be effective for many, I believe the government should also explore other strategies to address this problem.

On the one hand, there are a number of reasons why allowing individuals to use public transportation without paying a price is advantageous in various respects. Initially, using buses and trains would assist in improving traffic flow. To be specific, more individuals would utilise public transportation instead of driving their cars to get to work or education as long as the government provides free bus and train passes for citizens in their nations. Additionally, avoiding peak hour traffic bottlenecks may be accomplished by taking free public transportation. In this circumstance, it might result in a reduction in commute times.

However, for a variety of reasons, I vehemently disagree with this assertion. First of all, governments must spend a considerable sum of money to ensure free public happiness. Since the government’s resources are finite, when they focus their investments on this area, other crucial variables would be disregarded and undervalued. Nevertheless, there are solutions to resolve this dispute, notwithstanding what was just said. A suggestion is that the government might first provide incentives for remote jobs. People need not to physically be present at offices if they could work from home, which would end the daily drive. For instance, large corporations all across the world are experiencing this phenomenon, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak.

In conclusion, while providing free public transportation can indeed help reduce traffic, it should not be the sole focus of government efforts to solve this issue.

Sample 2:

It is generally believed that if the government wants to solve the traffic congestion problem, the most effective solution is to provide free public transportation, such as buses and trains. In my opinion, I agree with this idea because it really helps to ease the situation.

Firstly, I believe that free public transportation can reduce people's dependence on cars and improve traffic congestion. People who live outside the city centre tend to go to work because there are no buses or train stations around the area. Therefore, the government should consider building railway and bus lanes to cover all remote areas. In addition, dedicated lanes can be allocated to buses to avoid traffic jams. For example, Japan has done a very good job with its advanced subway system. Their stations are always overcrowded, and trains and buses are always on time. People rarely own cars and they rely on public transportation.

Secondly, the government should always carry out publicity activities to promote the advantages of using free public transportation. By doing so, people can break the mentality that public transportation is dirty, slow, and unreliable. As long as more people know, the transportation system is well designed, more comfortable and more convenient; people will soon start using public transportation. For example, Singapore has implemented 24/7 free public transportation, and its roads are unobstructed.

In short, I firmly believe that free transportation will reduce congestion by promoting awareness-raising campaigns and investment in buses and trains. Although it is a difficult task for the government to implement free public transportation in the community, once the government implements it successfully, it will have a major impact on everyone's life.

Sample 3:

Today with the increasing population and the exponential growth of urbanization, the transportation needs of the people have increased rapidly. Due to increasing transportation and the need for vehicles, traffic congestion has become a major problem of the countries with increasing populations. Therefore, looking into the problem deeply, I find that the best way to control this traffic congestion is for the government to provide 24/7 free public transport facilities. There are certain reasons for increasing traffic congestion as discussed below.

Firstly, the faster pace of population growth has increased the demand for more vehicles on the road. Since the transport facilities are less as compared to the people traveling, the demands have increased day by day which has contributed to more vehicles on the road and hence contributing to traffic congestion. Secondly, the increasing urbanization has caused more of the rural population to migrate to urban cities and metropolitan cities to find jobs and work. This increased migration of the population to urban cities is also one of the major causes of the traffic congestion on roads. For example, metropolitan cities of India like Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad are highly traffic-congested cities of India due to increased urbanization and rapid migration of the rural population.

Traffic congestion is one of the major causes of carbon dioxide emission and increasing global warming of the earth. The harmful gases emitted from these vehicles pollute the environment. For example, the highly populated city of India is Delhi due to increased traffic congestion. The government must provide free transportation facilities to reduce the number of private vehicles on the road and must also encourage the population to compulsorily use these free public transportation facilities to reduce the problem of traffic congestion. Besides, in public transport, the use of environmentally-friendly electric vehicles like metro services, electric trains, electric buses, and taxis must be encouraged instead of fuel vehicles to reduce the emission of harmful gases in the environment.

Therefore, after analyzing all the points above, the conclusion drawn upon is that traffic congestion is the major problem faced by many countries at large and the best solution to this problem is that the government must provide 24/7 free public transport facilities to the people.

Sample 4:

The population has been increasing day by day and with the increasing number of people, urbanization is also at its peak. In such situations, the huge demands of vehicles have caused rapid traffic congestion on roads. However, some people argue that the best way to control traffic congestion is that the government must provide 24/7 free public transport facilities, but in my opinion, this may not be the correct way to control the traffic congestion.

Some of the major reasons for traffic congestion are urbanization and the migration of the people. This has caused an increased demand for vehicles in the market. Nowadays people tend to travel a lot, and, in such conditions, they find it easier to use their own vehicles rather than opting for public transport. A survey conducted in China states that a majority of people prefer their own vehicles rather than public transport and this has increased more vehicles on road contributing to the traffic congestions. Secondly, people find it easy to carry their own vehicle to travel to different corners of the country as it is more comfortable than public transport. Also, the conditions of the public transport facilities have also deteriorated, they are also very congestive and unhygienic. Besides, the public transport facilities are not available to the remote corners due to non motorable roads and hence, the best option for traveling to these areas are the private vehicles. Secondly, private vehicles like cars and motorbikes have become more affordable and budget-friendly for people.

For the government to provide 24/7 free public transport facilities, it will be a big burden on their exchequer. Instead, the government must focus on other measures like encouraging bicycles for school and college-going students, build wide tracks with separate lanes, build more expressways and flyovers to reduce the congestion. Also, they must subsidize the public transport fares but not completely free. A separate track for pedestrians and cyclists must be built to limit the number of vehicles on the road. Besides, an awareness campaign must be launched to inform people of the traffic rules and safety measures. Strict traffic rules must be followed, and a compulsorily fine system should be introduced.

Instead of providing free transport facilities for the public, the above-mentioned measures must be given more importance.

Sample 5:

To reduce traffic congestion, the government must provide free transport facilities to the public. But this step can be moderately implemented to reduce the congestion on roads. Some other measures should also be taken in equal proportion to deal with the issue of traffic congestion. Therefore, the statement, Government should provide 24/7 free public transportation to reduce traffic congestion is moderately correct. There are several reasons for the increasing traffic congestion on roads as mentioned below.

Population in many of the developing countries like India and China has been increasing at an alarming rate. This has caused an increasing number of people on the road either using public transport, their own vehicles or pedestrians resulting in increased traffic congestion. Also, a large-scale migration of the population to urban cities for work had deteriorated the traffic conditions of big cities. Secondly, the fares of the public transport are quite high compared to the service they render and are more congested and unhygienic. Now, when automobiles have become more affordable and fuel-efficient, people opt for quality and comfort over public facilities. Thirdly, people have started to travel more these days and public transport facilities are not available to the remote corners of the cities or towns. In such situations what people find better is the use of the facilities of the private vehicle. However, the use of private vehicles has resulted in increased traffic congestion and besides, these are the major cause of concern as they contribute to the emission of harmful gases polluting the environment.

To deal with the problem of traffic congestion, providing only free public transport may not contribute much. Besides, the government must encourage the use of electric vehicles and bicycles amongst the population. Secondly, it must focus on building more expressways and highways and separate lanes to reduce the congestion. Enough attention must be paid to constructing road facilities in remote corners of the cities and towns and especially in rural areas so that public transport can easily reach every corner of the world. Strict adherence to the traffic rules must be followed.

All these steps along with free transport facilities by the government together can contribute to reducing traffic congestion.

Sample 6:

The incidents of traffic congestion are increasing along with the population growth. Some contend that in order to lessen traffic congestion, the government ought to offer free public transportation. This solution, in my opinion, can only partially resolve the issue.

Most individuals now prefer to live in cities or towns rather than rural areas due to urbanisation. This is one of the primary causes of the heavy traffic on the roadways. At the same time, cars have also gotten cheaper and more fuel-efficient as a result of technological improvement. The number of automobiles on the roads has also increased as a result.

The government is undoubtedly attempting to reduce traffic by enhancing the efficiency and speed of public transit. For instance, the DMRC system, which facilitates bus stops across the entire city, has been installed in Delhi, a densely populated metropolis. The public can utilise this bus service 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but it is not free, thus many people opt to drive their own car instead. Because buses and trains are crowded and uncomfortable, many individuals will still choose to use their own vehicles even if public transportation is free. Free public transportation will also put a strain on the exchequer.

In my opinion, the government can take a number of additional steps to lessen traffic on the roads. For instance, it needs to create bigger roadways, additional flyovers, and separate lanes for cyclists and pedestrians. It should also strictly enforce traffic regulations and promote the use of environmentally friendly transportation.

In conclusion, making public transportation free will undoubtedly encourage more people to use it, but since those who value comfort and convenience over cost will still drive privately, this strategy is ineffective in easing traffic congestion.

Sample 7:

The traffic is getting worse in contemporary society, some citizens suggest that the authorities should provide free public transport every day, yet there still remain some arguments against this issue as it's extremely costly. Overall, it is my personal view that offering free public transport is not the best way and other measures should be taken at the same time.

We have to admit that this policy can increase the usage of public transport. Inhabitants will take it into consideration if it's free when they are facing traffic jam. To some extent, it can reduce traffic congestion. But we cannot turn a blind eye to the problems it caused.

This initiative will sharply increase the national budget. It's generally acknowledged that national funds are limited and should be used in a large variety of social aspects from education to environmental protection. The initiative will leave a burden on the financial budget and let the infrastructure cannot be maintained and guaranteed.

Furthermore, this policy cannot address the root of this issue. People use private cars not because of the high cost of the public transportation system, but because the line and route don't cover their destination or the low efficiency when they plan for a long-distance trip. No matter how attractive public transport is, people still use private cars in case of emergency and essence. In addition, traffic congestion only accrued during the rush hours, so it's pointless to provide it for free all day.

To sum up, I think the authority should reduce the price and develop the traffic infrastructure if they want to address this issue, rather than provide it for free simply.

Sample 8:

Some contend that the best way to combat traffic congestion is to always provide free bus and rail passes to everyone who needs them. While I acknowledge it may work for the vast majority of individuals, I think the government ought to offer other options to address this issue.

In conclusion, it is undeniably true that providing free public transit to citizens may be a significant element in reducing traffic, but this is by no means the main component that governments should take into account when trying to address this issue.

Sample 9:

In recent years, traffic jams have been increasingly ubiquitous particularly in big cities which cause great fatigue for commuters. In order to tackle this problem, it is argued by many that government should provide free public transport all day, yet there still remain some arguments against this issue as it is extremely costly. Overall, it is my personal view that offering free public transport is not the best way and other measures should be taken.

First of all, it is an indisputable fact that traffic congestion is not only attributed to the vast amount of private transport but also road systems. Moreover, no matter how attractive public transport is, people still use private cars in case of emergency and essence. Thus, providing free public transport alone just contributes to cutting down the volume of traffic to some extent. In fact, many big cities like Ho Chi Minh still suffer from traffic jams in narrow roads with obsolete infrastructure in spite of the rise in availability of public transport. Therefore, I strongly believe that road needs to be widened, and traffic lights and signs should be made more state-of-the-art to stem the root causes.

More importantly, though providing free public transport 24 hours per day is not necessary and what is more is that it may leave a burden on the national budget. According to the majority of reports, traffic jams mainly occur during the rush hours, so it is pointless to provide public transport all the time. On top of that, providing free public transport in the long term may be unachievable due to its tremendous cost. This measure not only costs governments a fortune but it is also unable to address the root of the issue. It would be far more economical if this amount of money was invested in enhancing road facilities.

By way of conclusion, I once again reaffirm my position that other measures rather than making public transport available may be far more efficient to traffic congestion. In years to come, I strongly believe that more investments in road systems should be adopted to make commuting more comfortable and time-saving.

Câu 2

The world of work is rapidly changing and employees cannot depend on having the same job or the same working conditions for life. Why is it the case? Can you suggest some ways to prepare people to work in the future?

Xem đáp án

Lời giải

Sample 1:

These days, people’s workplaces are constantly changing and evolving to meet the demands of modern society. Furthermore, the roles and responsibilities of jobs are also undergoing changes to adapt to new ways of working and living. This essay will discuss the possible reasons for these changes and suggest some ways that people can better prepare themselves for their future careers.

Firstly, due to the developments in hi-tech machines and artificial intelligence, millions of people all around the world are losing their jobs and being replaced by automated processes. For example, millions of factory workers have lost their jobs because they have been replaced by machines that are able to do their job quicker and more effectively. Furthermore, as a result of the ever-increasing desire to cut expenses and increase profits, many jobs are being outsourced to countries where the wages are lower. For instance, when a person calls a tech support help line in an English-speaking country, they will most likely be connected to someone in another country, like India or Philippines, where the wages are lower.

However, there are a number of ways that people can prepare for changes in their workplaces in the future. Firstly, students preparing to leave high school need to be advised about the sustainability of the career path they are choosing. To illustrate, autonomous vehicles are predicted to replace most delivery and taxi driver jobs in the very near future, so this is not a job that someone should expect to have for a very long time. Furthermore, while some jobs are being replaced by technology, many jobs are simply incorporating technology into their process, and therefore people will need to be able to keep up to date with these changes. To help achieve this, specific courses could be designed to help educate people on the use of modern technology in their workplaces.

In conclusion, although there are many changes in the workplace these days, educating people to carefully choose their career and to keep up to date with modern technology is the key to avoiding any major problems.

Sample 2:

The nature of labor in our modern world is changing at a fundamental level, with many workers worried that they will not be able to maintain their job conditions for long periods of time. Personally, I think this is the result of stagnating wages and the advances of automation, and can only be resolved with a universal basic income for the whole population.

Firstly, I argue that society is witnessing the worst wage stagnation in generations, which is causing people to constantly look for better paying jobs. As cost increases yet wages are not following suit, most of the workforce have to scramble to reach for managerial positions or risk losing their disposable incomes. This in turn creates a situation where many people have to take up multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. In the US and UK, for instance, it is estimated that millions of workers are on zero-hour contracts, which does not guarantee a set number of hours of work.

Secondly, as corporations seek to reduce expenditure as much as possible, they aim to replace the workforce with machines, leading to higher levels of unemployment and less stable job conditions. As machines encroach on the workforce, jobs become focused on the maintenance of the robots running our factories, and therefore there is higher competition for the dwindling number of jobs with gradually raising entry barriers. The end result is sure to be tension amongst socio-economic classes that can afford entry into the workforce if the effect of automation is not being mitigated.

I argue that in order to solve this, it is important to implement Universal Basic Income, which is an equal lump sum of money given to all citizens of countries every month or year. This would help people to keep their jobs and not have to take up precarious work, since they have enough money to buy basic necessities. This scheme can already be seen in Canada during the COVID-19 outbreak, for example, with citizens getting 2000 Canadian dollars a year. This has been hugely popular, as it allowed Canadians to have some level of stability even as the economy came to a halt.

Overall, I believe that stagnant wages and automation is leading to volatile work conditions, and as such, I contend that UBI is needed to stabilize this situation.

Sample 3:

It is a tendency that many people change their careers many times during their lifetime. This essay will identify the causes for these changes and recommend some ways to prepare for working in the future.

There are many reasons why one job for life seems to be over. One of the major reasons is our consumerism society. Therefore, job hopping for higher paid jobs or doing multiple jobs is no longer simply an option. Another reason is that the development of technology has changed the structure of work at such a fast pace that people have to constantly update themselves with the latest working methods. However, many are unable to adapt to the changes. For example, older workers might find it difficult to compete with younger workforce and have to find a new job or change their career field.

For those who want a stable life even in the rapidly changing future, they should realise that as long as we find a job which gives us satisfaction, there would be no need to change. My advice for those people is that if we stick to one job, life can be more stable. Of course, if one wants some employment changes, they should prepare for new job openings with a variety of working experience and skill set. Some should return to school to pursue courses that can lead them into new careers. Otherwise, some should take a fresh environment in which they can use and improve their skills and experience.

In conclusion, the process of job hopping is becoming very common because of social and technological development. I suggest that our knowledge and skills should be updated regularly, and we should have a balance between career changes and job satisfaction.

Sample 4:

It is true that the present working environment has witnessed a radical change. People now tend to switch jobs more frequently rather than have their occupations remain stable. While this phenomenon can be caused by several reasons, there are certain recommendations to help future workers prepare themselves for their careers.

First and foremost, the introduction of new technology might be the greatest cause for such changes. In other words, millions of workers all around the world are being replaced by high tech machines and artificial intelligence. For example, some staff working in the service industry are now on the verge of unemployment due to the rapid growth of online shopping websites and self-service supermarket checkouts. Another reason leading to this phenomenon is globalization. Due to globalization, employees have a wide range of choices between different positions among countries. As a result, many individuals tend to shift from one job to another with a view to higher salary as well as better standard of living.

However, there are several ways that people can get ready for changes in their future workplace. Firstly, workers should be well equipped with various skills by attending vocational courses and job training. Thus, they might keep up to date with the rapid development of robots and automated processes. In addition, individuals can get advice about the sustainability of their future position. This helps them to excel in one job rather than multiple, which lifts up the burden of switching jobs regularly.

In conclusion, although cutting-edge technology and globalization have made a great impact on the world of work, employees must be well-informed and flexible to achieve expected goals.

Sample 5:

It is irrefutable that the work scenario is altering at a fast pace. Working conditions are also different and the process of job-hopping is very common. This essay shall delve into the possible causes for these changes and suggest ways to prepare for work in the future.

To begin with, the development of science and technology has changed the structure of work. For example, people no longer need to do some heavy work by themselves. Instead, they can use machines. Secondly, competition has become intense, and people have to constantly update themselves with the latest materials and methods. Sometimes they cannot compete with the new techno-savvy workforce and so have to change jobs out of compulsion.

Furthermore, we belong to an era of consumerism. Being surrounded by so many choices, people today want to buy new things and for that, they do multiple jobs. In addition, the 24/7 society of today provides us with the opportunity to workday and night. For instance, in earlier times, there were very few jobs which were round-the-clock jobs. But, today, globalization has brought in a multitude of options of working day and night. The line between day and night has become dim and people have become workaholics.

There could be many suggestions to prepare for work in the future. People should have a set goal in their mind and get training accordingly. Moreover, it is important to draw a line somewhere. The stress and strain of the fast modern workplace is leading many to nervous breakdowns. In the developed countries, a new term called downshifting has already come where after a certain stage, people are saying ‘no’ to promotions and showing contentment with less. We should also realize that if we stick to one job, then life can be more stable, and we can enjoy our leisure also.

To put in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, although work conditions are different today and we have a need to update our knowledge regularly, we can plan our life in a meticulous way and have a balance between work and leisure.

Sample 6:

In today’s modern world, people tend to change jobs more often than before and don’t want to work permanently in one environment. I would like to explore the sources of this issue and suggest several solutions for future work.

Firstly, due to the global recession, many employers have to downsize and restructure their businesses. This leads to a number of redundant employees being forced to leave their jobs and find other ones. Another reason is that, as living costs are getting higher and higher, people want to earn as much money as they can to meet their needs. Hence, they seek better opportunities and well-paid jobs everywhere, every day. Some also look for new challenges. Last but not least, thanks to new technology, people nowadays are able to access information more easily, including information about job recruiting.

One of my suggestions for this problem is to create a comfortable working environment and build strong relationships between colleagues and between managers and workers. These will make employees find it harder to leave. To achieve this, courses such as leadership training and communication skill training should be carried out to help supervisors lead their team efficiently without causing any stress, and help employees fit inconveniently.

In conclusion, I would like to state that changing jobs is one of the notable signs of our technological times, and soft skills training courses can help people adapt to the working environment instead of seeking to escape it.

Sample 7:

Work culture lately has been dynamically transformed, mainly due to improvements in technology like transport and communication. Job security has become a dicey issue as employees now need to keep themselves updated with the advancements around them. This essay shall further explain the reasons and offer probable solutions.

In the last two decades, we have seen a remarkable spread of technology in all wakes of life. With easy access to the Internet and computers, work has become faster and easier. Innovation of office tools is encouraged everywhere so as to not let anything hinder the growth of trade and commerce. With each task becoming effortless, manual intervention at many places has been reduced. Ergo, rising insecurity is seen among employees. Additionally, employees are expected to multi-task in their jobs making it more difficult for older workers to sustain.

The remedial measures for such a situation are very few as of now. First of all, state-of-the-art employee training centers to help the employees stay well-versed with the high-tech upgradations. To solve this problem from an earlier level, universities should start imparting practical training in their curriculum, with the know-how of current on-the-job scenarios to prepare potential workers better. All this needs to be done as the employees losing their jobs also lose financial security for their families, and it is very difficult to start again from ground zero.

To conclude, I’d say we should accept the ever-changing technological advancements as they’re unlikely to stop. Better would be to equip ourselves and become flexible accordingly so as to welcome such developments.

Câu 3