Câu hỏi:
10/01/2025 123Câu hỏi trong đề: 2000 câu trắc nghiệm tổng hợp Tiếng Anh 2025 có đáp án !!
Quảng cáo
Trả lời:
Sample 1:
The environmental impact of long-distance flights has ignited a debate on whether non-essential air travel, such as tourist trips, should be curtailed in favor of reducing automobile use. This essay will examine the validity of prioritizing the limitation of flights over cars.
Those in favor of restricting non-essential flights argue that the sheer volume of fuel consumed by a single long-haul flight equates to the fuel a car would use over several years, thus, by reducing flights, a significant decrease in carbon emissions could be achieved quickly. For example, in Vietnam, where tourism is a major economic contributor, flights to popular destinations like Da Nang and Phu Quoc are frequent. If these flights were limited, proponents argue, the reduction in greenhouse gases could be substantial. However, this stance fails to consider that the alternatives, such as car travel to these locations, could actually increase overall emissions due to the extended travel times and the inefficiencies of road transport over long distances.
However, I believe that focusing solely on limiting flights is a reductive approach and overlooks the broader benefits of global connectivity. Restricting tourist travel specifically could have deleterious effects on economies like Vietnam's, where tourism supports millions of livelihoods. Instead, enhancing fuel efficiency standards for both planes and cars and investing in sustainable aviation technologies might yield better long-term results. Moreover, if non-essential travel were discouraged, it would be imperative to ensure that alternative modes of transportation are made more environmentally friendly and accessible. Otherwise, the intended environmental benefits might be offset by increased reliance on less efficient travel options.
In conclusion, while the argument to limit non-essential flights to reduce environmental impact holds merit, a more holistic approach that includes improving transportation technology and infrastructure across the board would likely be more effective. Encouraging responsible travel and advancing green technologies should go hand in hand to address the pressing challenge of climate change.
Sample 2:
The environmental impact of long-distance flights, which consume as much fuel as cars over several years and produce equivalent pollution, has led some to advocate for abandoning non-essential flights, such as those for tourism. I completely agree with this viewpoint, as reducing air travel can significantly benefit the planet and alleviate noise pollution.
Firstly, flying is detrimental to the environment because it significantly contributes to global warming, pollution, and a large carbon footprint. The high rate of fuel combustion in aircraft increases carbon emissions, which directly affects the ozone layer's erosion and subsequently leads to global warming. A study published in Nature Communications found that the total climate impact of aviation, including non-CO2 effects, is around 4% of human-induced global warming, making it a significant contributor. By reducing non-essential flights, we can lower these harmful emissions and mitigate their effects on climate change.
Secondly, aircraft can cause substantial noise pollution, especially for those living near airports. Residents in these areas face numerous adverse effects, including sleep disturbances, impaired performance, and communication interference, as well as cardiovascular and psychological issues. The noise problems created by aircraft are a significant nuisance and health concern for these communities. By abandoning non-essential flights, the frequency of flights and consequently the level of noise pollution would decrease, improving the quality of life for people living near airports.
In conclusion, abandoning non-essential flights is a more efficient and effective approach than restricting car usage, as it would significantly reduce both environmental and noise pollution.
Sample 3:
The environmental impacts of long-distance flights and cars have become a topic of intense debate, as commercial flying is known to release gigantic amounts of emission into the environment. In this, I partly disagree with the assertion that discouraging non-essential flights should take precedence over limiting car use to mitigate pollution.
On the one hand, there are reasons to prioritize reducing flights. Supporters of this policy, firstly, argue that airplanes consume significantly more fuel and emit higher levels of pollutants per journey compared to cars. As a matter of fact, a single transoceanic flight can produce as much carbon dioxide as an entire year’s worth of car travel for an individual does. Additionally, emissions from aircraft, which are released at high altitudes, can have a more immediate and detrimental impact. This is because these gases would reach the top layers of the atmosphere more quickly, thus hastening the occurrence of the greenhouse effect. The issue of climate change, as a result, may become exacerbated faster than conventional projections.
The argument for limiting car use holds stronger merit when considering overall environmental impact, however. Notably, cars are operated daily by billions of people worldwide, resulting in a massive cumulative contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. This daily usage far exceeds the occasional nature of long-distance flights. Environmentally-friendly advancements in automotive technology, furthermore, are not progressing sufficiently quickly, with many old and inefficient vehicles still in use, especially in regions with lagging transportation infrastructure. This stands in stark contrast to the aviation sector, where fuel-efficient technologies and alternative fuels are increasingly adopted by industry leaders, which has the effect of driving down the number of emissions per flight over time. It could, therefore, be seen why reducing car use remains a top priority with respect to mitigating pollution.
In conclusion, I disagree that non-essential flights are a more pressing concern to the environment than automobile usage is. While the environmental toll of aviation is significant, the pervasive impact of cars demands a greater focus on limiting car emissions.
Sample 4:
It is irrefutable that the fuel consumed by one long-distance flight is consumed by a car in several years, and the amount of pollution it produces is also more. Therefore, some people suggest that non-essential flights, including international travel, should be discouraged. I disagree with this statement. I feel that even though cars produce less pollution and use less fuel, still we should focus on limiting the number of cars. Discouraging flights would lead to many other problems.
At a time when people all over the world worry about the decreasing level of fossil fuels and global warming, it is right to take action to save the planet Earth. However, simply discouraging flights is not the answer. International tourism has become the backbone of many economies of the world. Many countries are earning from tourism. Many people are employed in this industry. Many businesses, like hotels and leisure centres, are dependent on tourists. So, if we discourage international tourism, it would create new and even worse problems. Many businesses would go broke, and many people would be without jobs.
Air flight also enables intercultural exchanges between countries. The advent of cheap airfare makes it possible for people the world over to travel regularly, regardless of the purpose of the trip. Therefore, people have the opportunity to learn from different cultures and have a better understanding of countries they used to be unfamiliar with. This, in turn, enhances cultural communications between countries.
What we should do is to limit the use of cars. The number of cars is increasing at a very fast pace. This is creating too many problems. Cars are using too much fossil fuels; they are creating a lot of pollution; they are leading to traffic congestion on the roads, and they are also causing accidents.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, travelling by air should not be discouraged. Instead, the use of cars should be limited.
Sample 5:
Although long-distance flights exhaust a much greater amount of fuel as compared to cars, banning non-essential flights is no better way to control pollution than limiting the number of cars.
In the first place, although an individual flight may cause much more damage to the environment as compared to a car that travels the same distance, the total pollution caused by the increasing number of cars is much greater. For example, millions of new cars are crowding the streets every day and their numbers seem to be soaring, even in developing countries like India. The amount of pollution that they cause can, in no way, be compared to much fewer non-essential flights used for tourism, business and private use. Hence, abandoning such flights cannot be effective in minimising the impacts of pollution. Whereas, considering the enormous damage caused to the environment by millions of new cars, their usage should be limited.
Moreover, many people make use of private chartered flights because of the non-availability of seats on regular flights, especially when large groups of people travel together for the purpose of tourism or business. For example, during peak tourist seasons regular flights are often heavily booked and charted aircrafts are the only way to tide over the crisis. So is the case with businessmen, who travel on short notice. This would mean that banning the so-called nonessential flights would hamper the development of business and tourism, apart from not being an effective way to control pollution. On the other hand, if government can limit the use of private cars, many people can depend on the public transport system, which would substantially reduce environmental damage.
However, in certain instances, rich businessmen, politicians and celebrities use private aircrafts for their regular travel. Although there is an argument that privacy and safety are of prime importance to such people, many believe that their usage is nonessential in nature. But the effects of restricting such flights would be minimal, since their numbers are very few.
In conclusion, controlling the use of cars is a much better way to fight pollution than restricting a few non-essential flights.
Sample 6:
It is argued that unimportant flights, like those for tourism, should be minimised because they significantly contribute to pollution, equating to the emissions produced by cars over several years. I mostly disagree with this opinion.
I concede that reducing the frequency of non-vital air trips can decrease carbon emissions substantially, which is a significant contributor to global warming. By discouraging leisure travel, this can lead to cleaner air and a healthier environment due to less fuel consumption. For instance, reducing the number of tourist flights to popular destinations can significantly lower the annual greenhouse gas emissions of the aviation sector, thereby mitigating the adverse effects of climate change and improving air quality in regions heavily affected by air traffic.
However, I believe this discouragement may be questionable because it can violate personal freedom in choosing one's mode of transportation. Limiting the ability to fly can be seen as an infringement on individual rights, restricting people's freedom to explore new places and experience different cultures. If such a restriction were enforced, it could lead to social unrest and protests in many countries, significantly polarising nations.
Additionally, this suggestion overlooks the substantial number of cars on the streets, which collectively contribute significantly to pollution. Even though a single flight has a larger carbon footprint than a single car, the cumulative effect of millions of cars running daily is also a major environmental concern. To illustrate, in urban areas, the emissions from thousands of cars can create significant air quality issues
In conclusion, while reducing non-critical flights can have notable environmental benefits, it is vital to consider the implications on personal freedom and the large count of vehicles on the streets. Therefore, I somewhat believe that this reformation should not be encouraged, and a balanced approach should be implemented.
Hot: 500+ Đề thi thử tốt nghiệp THPT các môn, ĐGNL các trường ĐH... file word có đáp án (2025). Tải ngay
CÂU HỎI HOT CÙNG CHỦ ĐỀ
Lời giải
Sample 1:
Many young people work on a voluntary basis, and this can only be beneficial for both the individual and society as a whole. However, I do not agree that we should therefore force all teenagers to do unpaid work.
Most young people are already under enough pressure with their studies, without being given the added responsibility of working in their spare time. School is just as demanding as a full-time job, and teachers expect their students to do homework and exam revision on top of attending lessons every day. When young people do have some free time, we should encourage them to enjoy it with their friends or to spend it doing sports and other leisure activities. They have many years of work ahead of them when they finish their studies.
At the same time, I do not believe that society has anything to gain from obliging young people to do unpaid work. In fact, I would argue that it goes against the values of a free and fair society to force a group of people to do something against their will. Doing this can only lead to resentment amongst young people, who would feel that they were being used, and parents, who would not want to be told how to raise their children. Currently, nobody is forced to volunteer, and this is surely the best system.
In conclusion, teenagers may choose to work for free and help others, but in my opinion, we should not make this compulsory.
Sample 2:
Some individuals nowadays feel that youngsters should accomplish unpaid volunteer work in their leisure time for the benefit of society. I completely believe that it is critical to involve children in volunteer activity. The primary issues will be discussed with examples in this essay.
To begin with, teenagers who participate in unpaid employment are more responsible for local society. When adolescents interact with other individuals, they become aware of the issues that people face daily, such as poverty, pollution, and others. Furthermore, we have all been affected by the present COVID-19 outbreak, and many people have suffered a loss. According to "The Voice of Vietnam - VOV” a volunteer who is anti-virus and empathizes with the mental pain that the patients are experiencing, he always gives oxygen and food to those who need it the most. As a result, volunteering helps students become the most responsible citizens in the country.
Furthermore, unpaid employment can assist youngsters in broadening their social contacts and developing soft skills. Because when they work in an unpaid job, they will meet a variety of individuals and acquire a range of skills and abilities from others, such as leadership, teamwork, communication, and dealing with challenging situations. For example, a recent study in Japan discovered that students who participate in volunteer work are more sociable, enthusiastic, and tolerant of others. They will grow more extroverted, energetic, and hard-working as compared to youngsters who do not perform unpaid employment.
To conclude, I feel that rather than paying, young people should perform unpaid social work because they can acquire many important skills and are more responsible to society.
Sample 3:
There is a growing debate about whether all adolescents should be asked to perform mandatory volunteer work in their leisure time to help assist the surrounding area. Although there are a variety of benefits associated with this topic, there are also some notable drawbacks, as will now be discussed.
The advantages of teenagers doing voluntary work are self-evident. The first relevant idea is work experience. A valid illustration of this would be to increase their tangible skills. For example, an adolescent who volunteers to help in a customer service department will learn how to communicate effectively with people in different age groups. On a psychological level, the youth’s life skills will also be enhanced by having empathy towards others. This can be demonstrated by volunteering and assisting families living in low socio-economic backgrounds with their day-to-day tasks.
There are, however, also drawbacks that need to be considered. On an intellectual level, the teenager may get distracted from their study. This situation, for instance, can be seen when voluntary work is also being undertaken during school terms. There would be time constraints for both areas. On a physiological level, youth might experience fatigue as they are unaware of the acceptable working or volunteering hours and, as a result, sometimes they can be overworked.
In summary, we can see that this is clearly a complex issue as there are significant advantages and disadvantages. I personally believe that it would be better not to encourage the youths to do compulsory work because their studies might take them to a higher level in society, whereas volunteering could restrict this progress.
Sample 4:
Children are the backbone of every country. So, there are people who tend to believe that youngsters should be encouraged to initiate social work as it will result in flourished society and individualistic growth of youngsters themselves. I, too, believe that this motivation has more benefits than its drawbacks.
To begin with, social work by children can be easily associated with personality development because, during this drive, they tend to communicate with the variety of people, which leads to polished verbal skills. For example, if they start convincing rural people to send their children to school, they have to adopt a convincing attitude along with developed verbal skills to deal with the diverse kinds of people they encounter. This improved skill will help them lifelong in every arena. Apart from this, the true values of life like tolerance, patience, team spirit, and cooperation can be learned. Besides that, young minds serve the country with full enthusiasm that gives the feeling of fulfillment and self-satisfaction. This sense of worthiness boosts their self-confidence and patriotic feelings. Moreover, experiencing multiple cultures and traditions broadens their horizons and adds another feather to their cap.
However, it is truly said, no rose without thrones. Can the drawbacks of this initiation be ignored? Children go to school, participate in different curriculum activities, endure the pressure of peers, parents, and teachers and in the competitive world, they should not be expected to serve society without their self-benefits. This kind of pressure might bring resentment in their mind.
In conclusion, I believe, the notion of a teenager doing unpaid work is indeed good but proper monitoring and care should be given to avoid untoward consequences.
Sample 5:
Youngsters are the building blocks of the nation and they play an important role in serving society because at this age they are full of energy not only mentally but physically also. Some people think that the youth should do some voluntary work for society in their free time, and it would be beneficial for both of them. I agree with the statement. It has numerous benefits which will be discussed in the upcoming paragraphs.
To begin with, they could do a lot of activities and make their spare time fruitful. First of all, they can teach children to live in slum areas because they are unable to afford education in schools or colleges. As a result, they will become civilized individuals and do not indulge in antisocial activities. By doing this they could gain a lot of experience and become responsible towards society. It would be beneficial in their future perspective.
In addition to this, they learn a sense of cooperation and sharing with other people of the society. for instance, they could grow plants and trees at public places, and this would be helpful not only to make the surrounding clean and green but reduce the pollution also to great extent. Moreover, they could arrange awareness programmes in society and set an example among the natives of the state. This will make the social bonding strong between the individuals and this will also enhance their social skills.
In conclusion, they can “kill two birds with one stone” because it has a great advantage both for the society and for the adolescents. Both the parents, as well as teachers, should encourage the teens to take part in the activities of serving the community in their free time.
Lời giải
Sample 1:
Everyone has different dreams when it comes to where they wish to live. Personally, I think it is very desirable to live in a large city. I feel this way for two reasons, which I will explore in the following essay.
To begin with, cities offer a great environment for raising children, and I am a person who values family above all else. Urban areas have numerous parks and recreation centers which encourage children to lead vital and healthy lives, and they also have well-funded community centers which contribute to the intellectual development of young people. My own experience demonstrates the value of such facilities. Both my husband and I work full time jobs and are not home when our two sons finish school. This is not a problem, though, as both of them go directly to a local community center when their classes are over. Our eldest son participates in a computer club there, while our youngest son practices photography. Their participation in these programs sets my mind at ease, as without access to the community center they would just sit at home all alone. This situation compares favorably to a friend of mine who lives in a small town and recently had to hire an expensive babysitter to watch her children when they get home from school, as she was not able to locate any meaningful activities for them to take part in.
Secondly, large cities offer cultural experiences that adults can enjoy and appreciate. Most major cities have a plethora of museums, ethnic restaurants, libraries, theater groups and other stimulating and cosmopolitan facilities. My city is no exception. For instance, my colleagues and I spend every Friday evening visiting a new ethnic restaurant for dinner. Over the past three months we have enjoyed food from more than a dozen different national cuisines. Meanwhile, my sons and I go to a different museum once a month and I have found that I enjoy our visits almost as much as they do. These are the sort of outings that are only possible in a heavily populated urban area. Small towns offer easy access to beautiful natural scenery, but I prefer the intellectual and cultural stimulation that my city offers.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that living in a large city is preferable to living in a small town. This is because cities are better places to raise children, and because they offer stimulating intellectual and cultural experience that grown-ups can enjoy.
Sample 2:
I grew up in a small town and then moved to a big city, so I have experienced the good and bad
sides of both. I never thought that I would like to live in a big city, but I was wrong. After ten years of living in one, I can't imagine ever living in a small town again.
Small towns and big cities both have some problems in terms of transportation. In a small town, you have to own a car to ensure comfortable living. You can't get around without one because
there isn't any kind of public transportation. Big cities generally have heavy traffic and expensive
parking, but there you have a choice of taking public transportation. It's not free, but it's often cheaper than driving when you consider gas and time. Especially if you don't have a car, you're
better off in the city.
I love the excitement of big cities. Small towns have a slow pace. Large cities mean you have to
adapt to a variety of situations, like finding a new route to work or trying a new restaurant. I enjoy that challenge very much. Another source of the excitement of city living is the variety of cultural activities available. There is a wide assortment of theatre, music and dance performances
available in big cities. These things are rare in small ones.
The final thing I like about large cities is the diversity of the people. The United States is made up of people of different races, religions, abilities, and interests. However, you seldom find such a variety of people in a smaller town. I think that living in an area where everyone was just like me would quickly become boring.
Of course, security is a concern, and that's one area where small towns are superior to big cities.
Still, I would rather be a bit more cautious and live in a large city than feel secure but bored.
Sample 3:
Where should we live? Some may choose to live in big cities, while others like the natural and quiet surroundings in the countryside. As far as I am concerned, I would like to live in a big city because living in a big city has more advantages than living in the countryside.
To begin with, the city is the symbol of human civilization and there are many facilities for living, recreation and health care. Therefore, living there is more convenient than living in countryside. For example, we can find plenty of malls around our neighborhood, where we can buy everyday necessities at a low price. Furthermore, people are more concerned about their health and safety than other things in their lives. In big cities, medical facilities and emergency services are more easily accessible than in the countryside. Big cities also have convenient transportation and utility systems. They also offer faster Internet connections. These all make our life easier in big cities.
In addition, we can take part in a variety of events in big cities. Human beings like to live together and need to interact with each other. In a big city, the population density is high therefore there are always plenty of social activities, sports events and concerts. There are more recreational places in big cities, such as opera houses, movie theatres, clubs, and swimming pools. You will have many kinds of entertainment in big cities and meet many people. In the countryside, however, life may be dull and quiet, and you may only have a few neighbors. Living alone with few activities can easily cause mental diseases.
Some may argue that the pollution in cities makes people sick. However, with automobiles and modern highways we can easily take a break to expose ourselves to fresh air in the countryside and sunshine on the beach.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that living in big cities is much better than living in countryside because of the advanced facilities and social activities in cities. Moreover, the autos and highways
enable us to enjoy the natural and quiet surroundings in the countryside.
Sample 4:
In our modern world, people have different opinions on where the best place would be to live, and many argue that living in a small town is the ideal location, while others argue that living in a big city is preferred. Both places have their benefits and drawbacks, but I would prefer to live in a big city. This is because big cities offer diverse job opportunities, cultural experiences, and convenient amenities.
Big cities have a broader range of job opportunities than small towns. In a big city, one will have a chance to secure a job in various sectors and pursue a career. Many big companies and industries are typically located in larger cities, which means that job seekers have plenty of options. Moreover, a big city offers numerous opportunities for growth, as one can change jobs and pursue their passion. The job market in big cities also offers higher salaries and better benefits. Hence, for those who want to make a radicle career change and those who want to earn a decent living, a big city is the ideal place to live.
Cultural experiences are another reason why I prefer to live in a big city. Big cities offer diverse and unique cultural experiences that small towns
cannot, such as trying new foods and attending cultural festivals. In big cities, there is always a movie or a theatre show to attend, a concert or sporting event to watch, a museum or an art gallery to visit. The diversity of cultural experiences in big cities provides people with various opportunities to learn and broaden their horizons, which is an enriching experience.
Convenient amenities are also reasons why I prefer to live in big cities. Cities are often equipped with modern infrastructure. Cities have better medical facilities, public transportation systems, and essential services like banks and grocery stores. Big cities have a good public transportation system that is well-planned and suitable for people who do not own private cars. People in big cities have access to modern medical facilities with well-trained medical specialists.
Despite the benefits, big cities have some drawbacks. One of the most significant drawbacks is the high cost of living. Housing and rent are expensive in larger cities compared to small towns. Moreover, noise pollution and air pollution are common in big cities. Residents must always be aware of their surrounding environments to protect themselves from the effects of pollution. Additionally, congestion and crowding are other issues that plague many big city neighborhoods.
In conclusion, while big cities have their issues, I believe that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Big cities offer more job opportunities, an array of cultural experiences, and convenient amenities. Therefore, for me, getting the chance to live and experience all of this makes living in a big city very appealing.
Sample 5:
People seldom agree with one another, even on such trivial issues as the preference between living in a big city and a small town. It’s a bit hasty to claim that it is better to live in a big city than in a small town, or vice versa.
Living in a big city has several benefits. First, there are more job opportunities readily available in big cities compared to small towns. Furthermore, not only are there more job positions in big cities, but the quality of these positions is much higher as well. In addition, the pay is often more competitive.
Second, children are likely to receive a higher-quality education compared to their counterparts in small towns. For families, children’s education is always a top priority.
Finally, big cities generally offer a superior overall standard of living compared to small towns. There are more commodities and services available in city markets, more public utilities, and even a greater variety of television channels.
However, living in a small town also has its advantages. People in small towns often enjoy a more comfortable lifestyle. Most are free from the high work-related stress common in big cities. Although the average pay is lower, the cost of daily necessities, such as vegetables and meat, is usually more affordable.
Instead of experiencing the loneliness often prevalent in big cities, children in small towns may grow up more healthily due to harmonious relationships among residents. People in small towns don’t have to wake up as early in the morning, as there are no traffic jams, and drivers tend to be more cautious, reducing the likelihood of accidents. While they may have fewer television channels, they have more friends readily available for socializing and entertainment.
As for my current situation, although I long for the cozy atmosphere and close relationships among neighbors and friends, which are often unique to small towns, I have chosen to live in one of the biggest cities in my country - Beijing. This is because I have found a good job here with a decent salary. I think I would prefer living in a small town when I retire one day.
Sample 6:
In English, there is a well-known fairy tale about a poor country boy, Dick Whittington, who goes to London believing that the streets of the city are “paved with gold.” The story is a classic “rags to riches” tale. Dick eventually becomes the Lord Mayor of London. Like the hero of that story, I always find wonder and adventure in cities.
Cities contain a fascinating assortment of people. Whenever I walk around a shopping precinct at midday on a weekend, I am captivated by the variety of individuals hurrying through the shops. Sometimes, I simply sit on a public bench and observe the diverse streams of shoppers passing by.
Today, in the age of globe-trotting transport and advanced communication, city life is more diverse than ever. Capital cities are now highly cosmopolitan and eager to attract foreign trade and currency. There is a contemporary English joke that says, “You can never find an Englishman in London.”
Whether rightly or wrongly, governments and local authorities tend to prioritize building public amenities in big cities. Money is invested in transportation, libraries, parks, and museums. Often, countries compete to construct the most impressive “showcase” buildings. For example, Malaysia has built a skyscraper taller than anything in New York. Similarly, within large countries, regions compete with each other: New York against Chicago, Shanghai against Hong Kong, or Beijing.
All of this benefits city dwellers. The magic of the Dick Whittington story is rekindled in me whenever I enter a library housed in a magnificent building. For university students studying art or music, large cities often offer galleries and public performances. Even as a teenager, I appreciated living in a city because it gave me the opportunity to attend rock concerts by my favorite bands several times a year.
Architecture shapes the urban landscape. For those who appreciate it, a city can be as visually exciting as the Himalayas. A modern metropolis resembles a mountain range with its height, light, and solidness. At the same time, old buildings add to its charm - quaint, unspoiled side streets, or shops and homes from distant ages. Even someone who spends their entire life in one large city could continue discovering its architectural secrets well into old age.
Humans are “social animals.” They talk, interact, and create. Cities provide libraries, universities, and café bars where people can meet and share ideas with others of their kind.
Sample 7:
Some people would like to live in a small town because the surroundings could be more picturesque, and people are friendlier compared to people in a big city. However, in my opinion, living in a big city is more effective and beneficial based on the following reasons.
First, living in a big city is convenient. Thanks to public transportation, any place in a big city is usually accessible. Without driving, you have many options among buses, trains and subway. Taxis are also available on almost every corner of the city. Besides, it is easy to find a restaurant or food stands in your neighborhood within walking distance whenever you are hungry. There are also convenience stores all over, so city residents can buy any stuff easily at any time without bothering to drive to a certain place to get what they need. Convenience is the best what a city can offer while a small town is less likely to.
In addition, a big city provides more education opportunities. The residents have easier access to schools and education resources, so do they to faculty and advanced facilities. Take teachers for example, they are willing to teach in a big city because of the better salary and there are more resources they need available in libraries and related institutes when they want to go further to sharpen their teaching skills. Similarly, when children plan to take some talented courses such as piano, art, and the like, a city with more options and business activities is where parents want their children to live and grow.
Here is another perfect example to illustrate my preference of a city. I used to be a volunteer in an elementary school in a small town. Although the town was lovely and clean, there was some inconvenience caused in daily life. First, less bus service was provided, so people usually had no choice but to wait a long time to take the bus. Second, restaurants and food stands were all closed after nine o’clock, so it’s hard to find something to eat if you are hungry late in the evening. Lastly, teachers in the elementary school might need to teach many courses with different subjects, when necessary, because of a lack of faculty, that is, an English teacher could be asked to teach math or science as well. Also, the facilities in the classroom and the science lab were old- fashioned. From my observation, people can live peacefully in a small town but actually there are more opportunities and availability a big city can offer.
Last but not least, infrastructure and public services are usually prominently featured in a big city. When I want to exercise on a rainy day, I can go to the sport center without worrying about places to go. In contrast, I might be trapped at home in a small town in the same situation. Besides, public services like medical care and care centers are fully developed for people with a pressing need. Libraries also provide better book circulation and activities to cater for their readers, which is not very likely to take place in a town with the number of people which is small. For people who like tranquility and secure, small towns are the best choice. However, for those who prefer economic prosperity, a variety of things to do, places to go and activities to join, the better choice is in a big city. I happen to be the one who prefers the latter and enjoys the lives in it.
Sample 8:
It is crucial to choose a place which suits you to live because where you live has influence over the quality of your life and happiness. Compared to those who prefer to live in a small town with a quiet environment, living in a big city to take advantage of the modern conveniences that it can offer is my choice.
First of all, the public transportation system is one of amenities people can benefit from. Big cities usually provide a well-developed transportation network, such as bus, train, subway and airport, so people in the city have very easy access to the vehicles that can help them reach any destination they want to. In contrast, the convenience of public transportation is usually not found in a small town, where people might tend to drive or use other means of transport to get about.
Besides, there are more opportunities for either finding a job or taking education. With a larger population, more jobs are available for everyone to find than those in the countryside. Take where I live for example, although the job market is very competitive, university graduates often move to Taipei, which is the major city in Taiwan. If you need to develop a skill, it is also likely that you will achieve it and then get a job successfully. More importantly, there are also more educational opportunities and a lot of different courses and institutions available. There is always availability of learning something new or developing practical skills in a big city.
Furthermore, cities can provide a variety of entertainment options every day. There is always something fun to do in a big city to keep people of all different interests from getting bored. Cities provide a lively nightlife, all types of shows, museums and sports facilities. Additionally, you will be able to connect with other people who share the same hobbies at different events.
While the lifestyle in a small town is less stressful, the city lifestyle has a lot of opportunities for people. Personally, I prefer to live in a big city which offers a variety of many options. In the meanwhile, I like the energy and the convenience in a big city. City life can have many positive impacts compared to rural life.
Sample 9:
There are many differences between living in a big city and a small town. Therefore, we must choose based on our personal preferences and needs. If you prefer a calm and peaceful environment, small towns are suitable for you. However, if you want to develop yourself, big cities are the best places to learn and acquire skills essential for your future.
In life, the most important thing for everyone is, of course, health. If someone’s health deteriorates, they might lose everything they have. Small towns often provide a healthier environment. You can enjoy peaceful rivers, mountains, abundant greenery, and a clear night sky filled with stars. Life there is calm and free from the excessive noise of big cities, as the population and number of cars are much smaller. However, living in a small town can mean missing out on global news, fashion trends, and other advancements.
On the other hand, living in a big city provides more opportunities for personal growth and the chance to enhance your competitive skills. Over time, this can help you establish your own identity and attitude in society. People in big cities are often motivated to work hard to support their families. However, city life comes with challenges, such as air pollution and waste management issues. If we do not address these problems, they could have serious consequences for our future.
In conclusion, small towns offer comfort and tranquility, while big cities are dynamic and full of opportunities. Personally, I would choose to live in a big city first to improve myself. Later, when I want to rest and prioritize my health, I would move to the countryside or a small town.
I hope you can choose the place that best suits your needs and appeals to you.
Sample 10:
I grew up in a small town and then moved to a big city. I didn't think I would like to live here, but I was wrong. I think life is much better in a big city. Transportation is much more convenient, everything is more exciting, and there is a greater variety of people. I can't imagine ever living in a small town again.
Transportation is easier in a city. In a small town, you have to have a car to get around because there isn't any kind of public transportation. In a city, on the other hand, there are usually buses and taxis, and some cities have subways. Cities often have heavy traffic, and expensive parking, but it doesn't matter because you can always take the bus. Using public transportation is usually cheaper and more convenient than driving a car, but you don't have this choice in a small town.
City life is more exciting than small town life. In small towns usually nothing changes. You see the same people every day, you go to the same two or three restaurants, everything is the same. In a city things change all the time. You see new people every day. There are many restaurants, with new ones to choose from all the time. New plays come to the theaters and new musicians come to the concert halls.
Cities have a diversity of people that you don't find in a small town. There are much fewer people in a small town and usually they are all alike. In a city you can find people from different countries, of different religions, of different races - you can find all kinds of people. This variety of people is what makes city life interesting.
Life in a city is convenient, exciting, and interesting. After experiencing city life, I could never live in a small town again.
Sample 11:
If you were asked to choose between living in a big city or a small town, where would you prefer to live? Some people might choose to live in a small town because the environment is cleaner, and it fosters closer relationships with others. This suggests that living in a small town has its benefits. However, I believe there are three key reasons why living in a big city is more advantageous.
First, living in a big city provides greater opportunities to gain advanced knowledge and develop oneself. In contrast, the range of educational options in a small town is often limited. Furthermore, the presence of many students in a city creates a competitive environment that encourages us to work harder. While education may not be the only important aspect of life, it remains essential because we rely on knowledge throughout our lifetime.
Second, living in a city allows us to meet more people and adapt to society more easily. For example, interacting with diverse individuals helps us learn about their personalities and characteristics. Building relationships and making friends in a city can greatly benefit us as we grow older. By communicating with people in a big city, we gain a better understanding of how society functions and what we need to do to thrive. Therefore, city life prepares us to navigate societal challenges more effectively.
Lastly, living in a big city offers more job opportunities. Securing employment is a crucial aspect of life, and cities typically provide a wider variety of workplaces, such as companies, factories, and universities. For instance, becoming a professor is more achievable in a city where universities are abundant. In contrast, small towns cannot guarantee the same level of employment opportunities.
In conclusion, while small towns have advantages like friendlier communities and a cleaner environment, I believe living in a big city is more beneficial. Cities offer better educational opportunities, greater chances to meet people and adapt to society, and more job prospects. For these reasons, I would prefer living in a big city over a small town.
Lời giải
Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.
Lời giải
Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.
Lời giải
Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.
Lời giải
Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.
Lời giải
Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.
Bộ câu hỏi: [TEST] Từ loại (Buổi 1) (Có đáp án)
Bài tập chức năng giao tiếp (Có đáp án)
Bộ câu hỏi: Các dạng thức của động từ (to v - v-ing) (Có đáp án)
500 bài Đọc điền ôn thi Tiếng anh lớp 12 có đáp án (Đề 1)
15000 bài tập tách từ đề thi thử môn Tiếng Anh có đáp án (Phần 1)
Bộ câu hỏi: Thì và sự phối thì (Phần 2) (Có đáp án)
Trắc nghiệm Tiếng anh 12 Tìm từ được gạch chân phát âm khác - Mức độ nhận biết có đáp án
500 bài Đọc hiểu ôn thi Tiếng anh lớp 12 có đáp án (Đề 21)