Câu hỏi:
10/01/2025 210
The chart below shows the annual pay (thousands of US dollars) for doctors and other workers in seven countries in 2004.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. Write at least 150 words.
The chart below shows the annual pay (thousands of US dollars) for doctors and other workers in seven countries in 2004.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. Write at least 150 words.
Câu hỏi trong đề: 2000 câu trắc nghiệm tổng hợp Tiếng Anh 2025 có đáp án !!
Quảng cáo
Trả lời:

Sample 1:
The bar chart gives information about the yearly salaries of doctors compared to other professions across various countries in 2004.
Overall, the US was the top payer for both doctors and other workers, while salaries in Italy, the Czech Republic, and Germany were relatively similar. Additionally, doctors received significantly higher annual pay than people doing other jobs in all given countries.
In terms of the annual salary of doctors, the United States topped the list with a substantial $120,000 per year, followed distantly by France and Switzerland, where these health professionals made the same amount of $70,000 annually. Meanwhile, those working in Italy, the Czech Republic, and Germany had annual earnings of approximately $60,000, about $10,000 higher than that of Finnish doctors.
Although the US saw the largest pay gap between their doctors and other workers, the latter were still the biggest earners among those in other countries, earning just above $40,000. Swiss workers of other professions were remunerated slightly lower, as they made exactly $40,000. Notably, there was no pay difference between Italian, Czech, and German workers, all of whom earned $20,000. Finally, a close similarity can be seen in the remuneration for non-doctor professionals in France and Finland, with respective figures of roughly $30,000 and $25,000.
Sample 2:
The chart demonstrates the yearly pay for doctors and other workers in seven different nations in 2004 in thousands of USD.
Overall, it is immediately obvious that doctors make more than any other profession in these countries. Furthermore, the average salary for American workers, both for doctors and other professions, outstrips every other country.
With regards to doctors’ pay, the US ranks first at an average of 120 000 USD, being significantly higher than the countries in joint second place of Switzerland and France, where doctors earn around 70 000 USD. Conversely, doctors in Finland earn the least at only 50 000 USD annually, 10 000 lower than the second lowest pay for doctors, that of Italy, at 60 000 USD.
As for the salary for other professions, it is again highest in the US, where average pay is around 45 000 USD. Meanwhile, Switzerland ranks second at 40 000 USD, while France is third at 30 000 USD. Germany, the Czech Republic and Italy all share the bottom position, paying their non-doctors a measly 20 000 USD on average.
Sample 3:
The bar chart gives information about the salary of doctors and other workers in seven countries in 2004.
Overall, it can be seen that the US paid the highest salary for both doctors and other workers. In addition, doctors received higher pay than people doing other jobs in all 7 countries.
In 2004, France and Switzerland paid an equal amount of money for their doctors, at 70,000 dollars, while the salaries of other workers were only about 30,000 dollars in France and 40,000 in Switzerland. In a similar fashion, doctors in Italy, Czech, Germany received around 60,000 dollars for their work, three times as much as the salary of other workers.
120,000 dollars was the salary of doctors in the US in 2004, nearly triple the payment of doctors in Finland. People doing other occupations in the US were also paid higher than their Finnish counterparts – 40,000 dollars compared to just less than 30,000 dollars.
Sample 4:
The bar chart compares seven countries regarding the yearly payment for doctors and other jobs in the year 2004.
It is clear that doctors generally made more money than other types of work in each country during the research period. Also, the average incomes of American doctors and other workers were the highest among the seven nations.
The US doctors earned the largest amount of money compared to those in the other six countries, receiving nearly $120,000, while the figures for Switzerland and France were significantly lower, at close to 70,000 each. In contrast, there was only about $50,000 earned by doctors in Finland, as opposed to doctors in the other countries, who received around $61,000 each.
Regarding the average salaries of other workers, the amount of money earned by other workers in the US, at approximately $45,000 and in Switzerland, at exactly $40,000 was higher than in any of the other nations. Roughly $30,000 was given to French other workers, about $5,000 higher than that of Finnish counterparts. By contrast, the figures for the remaining countries were lowest, at exactly $20,000 each.
Sample 5:
The bar chart compares the yearly salary of doctors and other workers in several countries in the year 2004.
Overall, it is clear that the pay of US doctors was much higher than that of doctors in other countries. In each country, the annual salary of doctors was far higher than that of other workers.
The annual pay of doctors in the US was $120,000, whereas in Finland doctors received a comparatively low yearly salary of $50,000. In France, and Switzerland doctors earned $70,000 per year, compared with around $60,000 annually in Italy, Germany and the Czech Republic.
In contrast, the annual wages of other workers were much lower, at about $45,000 and $40,000 in the US and Switzerland, respectively. Other workers in France earned $30,000, a little more than other workers in Finland, who had an annual salary of $25,000. The lowest annual earnings were for other workers in Italy, Germany and the Czech Republic, at exactly $20,000.
Sample 6:
In 2004, the bar graph compares the annual earnings of doctors and employees in other professions in seven different countries. Overall, doctors earned significantly more than employees in other fields, with disparities varying greatly across countries. Doctors and other workers were paid the most in the United States.
It is noticeable that the average salary of an Italian, Czech, and German doctor was three times that of a worker in other fields, with figures ranging between 60 and 20 thousand US dollars. In Finland, the pattern was slightly different, with doctors earning around $55,000, which was more than double the figure for other workers, who earned $25,000.
Doctors in France and Switzerland earned roughly the same amount of money that year, while workers in other fields earned significantly less.
In terms of the US labor force, an average American doctor and worker were paid the most per year, receiving 120 thousand US dollars and just over a third of this, respectively.
Sample 7:
The provided bar chart presents a comparison of the annual salaries of doctors and other workers in multiple countries for the year 2004.
In general, it’s evident that doctors in the United States received significantly higher salaries compared to their counterparts in other nations. Furthermore, doctors in all the featured countries earned considerably more than other workers.
Specifically, doctors in the United States enjoyed an annual income of $120,000, while their counterparts in Finland received a notably lower yearly wage of $50,000. Meanwhile, doctors in France and Switzerland earned $70,000 annually, in contrast to approximately $60,000 per year in Italy, Germany, and the Czech Republic.
On the flip side, the yearly wages of other workers were notably lower, standing at approximately $45,000 and $40,000 in the United States and Switzerland, respectively. In France, other workers earned around $30,000, slightly more than their Finnish counterparts, who had an annual salary of $25,000. The lowest annual earnings were observed among other workers in Italy, Germany, and the Czech Republic, all of whom earned exactly $20,000 annually.
Sample 8:
The bar chart provides a comparative analysis of seven countries with respect to the annual income of doctors and other occupations in the year 2004.
It is evident that, in each of the countries examined, doctors generally commanded higher incomes than individuals in other professions during the study period. Furthermore, the United States emerged as the country with the highest average earnings for both doctors and other workers among the seven nations.
In the case of doctors, the United States took the lead with doctors earning the most substantial income, nearly reaching $120,000, whereas Switzerland and France reported considerably lower figures, at approximately $70,000 each. Conversely, doctors in Finland earned approximately $50,000, notably lower than their counterparts in the other countries, who averaged around $61,000 each.
Sample 9:
The provided bar chart illustrates the annual salaries for doctors and other types of workers in seven nations in the year 2004, with the figures presented in thousands of US dollars.
In summary, doctors across all seven countries earned higher salaries compared to other types of employees, and the United States boasted the highest incomes for both professions when compared to the other nations.
Specifically, doctors in France and Switzerland received an identical annual salary of $70,000. There were slight variations in the earnings of doctors in Italy, the Czech Republic, and Germany, with variances of approximately 2 to 3 thousand dollars. American doctors, in contrast, earned a substantial $120,000, which was nearly three times the salary of Finnish doctors.
For other members of the workforce, Italians, Czechs, and Germans all earned a uniform wage of $20,000. The annual income for workers in France and Finland stood at $30,000 and $25,000, respectively. In Switzerland, employees received $40,000 per year, while workers in the United States earned $5,000 more than their Swiss counterparts.
Sample 10:
The bar chart provides a visual representation of the annual salaries for doctors and other workers in seven countries in the year 2004.
Overall, it is evident that in 2004, the salaries of doctors in these seven countries were substantially higher than the earnings of individuals in other professions. Notably, the United States stood out as the nation with the highest income for employees when compared to the other countries.
Specifically, in 2004, the average income for medical professionals in almost all the featured countries exceeded 60,000 US dollars. The United States led the pack, with doctors earning an impressive 120,000 US dollars annually, while Finland reported the lowest income for doctors, at only 45,000 dollars in the same year. Switzerland and France followed closely with an annual salary of 65,000 dollars for medical professionals.
On the contrary, the earnings of other workers in these countries were considerably lower. The United States continued to lead in this category, with an approximate 42,000 US dollars paid to professionals in fields other than medicine in 2004. In contrast, companies in the Czech Republic, Germany, and Italy paid less than half of this amount, with average annual incomes of 20,000 US dollars, in stark contrast to the American figures.
Sample 11:
The bar chart provides a visual representation of the annual salaries of doctors and other workers in seven countries in the year 2004.
In general, it is evident that in 2004, doctors in these seven different countries earned significantly higher salaries compared to those in other professions. Notably, the United States emerged as the country with the highest income for employees when compared to the rest of the nations.
During 2004, the average income for medical professionals in nearly all the countries featured exceeded 60,000 US dollars. The United States led the pack, with doctors earning a substantial estimated amount of 120,000 US dollars annually. In contrast, the average income for doctors in Finland was the lowest among the countries, standing at only 45,000 dollars for the year in question. Switzerland and France came in second, with doctors in these countries earning an annual salary of 65,000 dollars.
Sample 12:
The provided bar graph offers data on the salaries of doctors and other laborers in seven different countries: France, Italy, Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Switzerland, and the United States in the year 2004. Upon initial examination, it is apparent that doctors in all seven countries earned significantly higher incomes than other workers. Furthermore, the United States emerged as the country with the highest earnings in both the medical profession and other occupations.
Upon closer examination, it becomes evident that doctors in most of the countries received salaries that were more than twice the earnings of other laborers, with the exception of Switzerland, where doctors earned around $70,000 while other workers received $40,000. In Italy, the Czech Republic, and Germany, the income of other laborers was only about one-third of what their counterparts in the medical profession earned. On average, non-medical workers earned approximately $20,000, while doctors earned over $60,000 each.
Turning to American doctors, they garnered the highest incomes among the seven countries, with an annual income of $120,000. In parallel, other workers in the United States also had the highest income among all seven countries, with slightly over $40,000, signifying that doctors earned three times the income of other laborers.
Sample 13:
The provided bar chart offers a comparison of seven countries concerning the annual earnings of doctors and other job categories in the year 2004.
It is evident that doctors generally command higher salaries than those in other professions in each country during the study period. Additionally, both American doctors and other workers held the highest average incomes among the seven nations.
In the United States, doctors earned the highest income compared to their counterparts in the other six countries, with an annual income of nearly $120,000, while Switzerland and France reported notably lower figures, at approximately $70,000 each. In contrast, doctors in Finland earned around $50,000, as opposed to doctors in the other featured countries, who received an average of approximately $61,000 each.
Shifting the focus to the average salaries of other workers, the earnings of these workers in the United States, at roughly $45,000, and in Switzerland, at exactly $40,000, exceeded those of the other nations. French other workers earned approximately $30,000, which was about $5,000 higher than the earnings of their Finnish counterparts. In contrast, the figures for the remaining countries were the lowest, at exactly $20,000 each.
Sample 14:
The bar chart provides information about doctors’ and other workers’ salaries per year in seven distinct countries in 2004. Overall, the annual salary of doctors is always bigger compared to other professions.
In the US, a doctor’s income per year is 125 thousand dollars which is more than two times other workers’ annual pay that is just under 50 thousand dollars. Other countries also show a similar pattern between doctors’ and other occupations’ annual pay. Italy, the Czech Republic, and Germany have nearly identical conditions which is a doctor’s yearly salary is twice of other jobs’ income in one year.
Finlandia is the country that has the lowest doctor’s income compared to another occupation salary yearly among the seven countries, but doctors’ annual earnings are still twice of other jobs’ annual wages. There is only one exception which is in Switzerland that doctor’s annual take-home pay did not reach two times of other kinds of job annual earnings.
Sample 15:
The provided bar chart compares seven nations based on the annual salaries of doctors and other workers in the year 2004.
Clearly, doctors in each of the seven countries earned significantly more than other types of work during that particular year. Additionally, the United States stood out as the nation with the highest average incomes for both doctors and other workers among these countries.
In the United States, doctors earned the highest income, approximately $120,000, significantly surpassing the earnings of doctors in the other six nations. In contrast, doctors in Switzerland and France received substantially lower salaries, at around $70,000 each. Conversely, doctors in Finland earned a modest $50,000, contrasting with their counterparts in other countries who earned approximately $61,000 each.
When considering the average salaries of other workers, the income for other workers in the United States was approximately $45,000. In Switzerland, it reached exactly $40,000, which was higher than in the remaining nations. French other workers received around $30,000, which was about $5,000 more than their Finnish counterparts. On the contrary, the figures for other countries were consistently lower, remaining at exactly $20,000 each.
Sample 16:
The provided bar graph displays the annual compensation for doctors and other occupations in seven countries in the year 2004. In a broader context, the United States, France, and Switzerland had the highest salaries for doctors, while Finland had the lowest. Similarly, in the United States, Switzerland, and France, other jobs had the highest pay, while Germany, the Czech Republic, and Italy had the lowest salaries.
The United States led the way with a doctor’s salary of $120,000, followed by France in the second position with nearly $70,000, and Switzerland in the third position. Finland had the lowest doctor’s compensation among the countries.
For other job categories, the United States, Switzerland, and France had the highest salaries in proportion, while Germany, the Czech Republic, and Italy had similar and the lowest compensation among all the countries.
Sample 17:
The bar chart compares the payment each year for doctors and other workers in different nations in 2004.
Overall, the US paid the largest annual salary for both positions and also recorded the widest gap between these two figures. It also can be seen that doctors’ salaries were higher than other workers’ in both seven countries.
Regarding the chart, in 2004, annual payment for doctors in the US was 120 thousand US dollars, which nearly tripled the amount of money that other workers received. The figure for doctors in France and Switzerland were equal, at about 70 thousand US dollars, but other workers in former were paid lower than in the latter, at nearly 30 and 40 thousand US dollars respectively.
In Germany and Czech, doctors were offered roughly 65 thousand US dollars each year, compared to 60 in Italy. The lowest salary for this job was found in Finland, with only 50 thousand US dollars. Meanwhile, this nation offered a higher annual payment for other workers, at bout 25 thousand US dollars, than in Italy, Czech and Germany where they were offered equally, at 20 thousand US dollar.
Sample 18:
The bar chart illustrates how much money doctors and other workers were paid annually in seven different nations in 2004.
It was evident that doctors consistently earned more than their counterparts in other professions across all seven surveyed countries. Additionally, both American doctors and other workers received higher salaries than those in the remaining regions.
Firstly, the salaries of doctors in France and Switzerland were identical, reaching 70,000 US dollars per year, while the salary for other professions in Switzerland was only 40,000 and in France was just under 30,000. Secondly, there was also a similar pattern in doctors' salaries in Italy, Czech Republic, and Germany, where doctors earned approximately 60,000 US dollars per year. That amount was three times higher than the salary for other workers, set at 20,000 US dollars.
Additionally, the salary gap between doctors and other workers was notably wide in the United States. Among seven countries, the States led with the highest average doctor salary of 120,000 US dollars per year, nearly three times higher than other workers. In contrast, doctors in Finland reported the lowest payment, averaging just over 50,000 US dollars per year, less than nearly threefold the money offered in the United States.
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:
Medical studies have shown that smoking not only leads to health problems for the smoker, but also for people close by. As a result of this, many believe that smoking should not be allowed in public places. Although there are arguments on both sides, I strongly agree that a ban is the most appropriate course of action.
Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons. Firstly, they say that passive smokers make the choice to breathe in other people’s smoke by going to places where it is allowed. If they would prefer not to smoke passively, then they do not need to visit places where smoking is permitted. In addition, they believe a ban would possibly drive many bars and pubs out of business as smokers would not go there anymore. They also argue it is a matter of freedom of choice. Smoking is not against the law, so individuals should have the freedom to smoke wherever they wish.
However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban. First and foremost, it has been proven that tobacco consists of carcinogenic compounds which cause serious harm to a person’s health, not only the smoker. Anyone around them can develop cancers of the lungs, mouth and throat, and other sides in the body. It is simply not fair to impose this upon another person. It is also the case that people’s health is more important than businesses. In any case, pubs and restaurants could adapt to a ban by, for example, allowing smoking areas.
In conclusion, it is clear that it should be made illegal to smoke in public places. This would improve the health of thousands of people, and that is most definitely a positive development.
Sample 2:
The earlier we can ban smoking in public places, the better it would be for humankind. Having foreseen the same, many offices and governing bodies imposed a strict ban on public smoking. This measure is generally applauded by the majority of mass. However, the opposing minority interrupts this ban as an act of arrest on one's free will. Let us discuss this moot issue below.
It is generally agreed and even proven with scientific studies, that smoking is injurious to health. The health problems that smoking can induce are numerous. Cancer is among the major detrimental effects of smoking on one’s health. As clearly shown on cigarette packages, smoking is a primary cause of cancer. Furthermore, the effects of smoking on the systemic and peripheral circulation in the human body are appalling, as put forward by medical experts. The havoc of this insane habit is so horrifying that research points towards its possible harmful effects on unborn children, even. Smoking is considered as a culprit among the many, behind congenital birth defects and anomalies.
Another factor significant to this context would be the financial constraints imposed by smoking. In many developing countries, where people work on daily wages, the habit of smoking has an atrocious impact on their quality of life. In the majority of the mediocre families, around the world, smoking drains the significant part of their family budgets. For example, I witnessed many problems with reference to my father being a chronic smoker and the financial crisis it caused.
The amount of carbon and other toxic elements exhaled into the atmosphere by active smokers has reached such dizzy heights that its effect on passive smokers is more or less a reality now. In fact, the effect of first-hand smoke is seen permeable to even the second and third-hand smokers in the spectrum. The significance of the public ban on smoking is not just justifying but a necessity as it calls for. As a result, it is widely banned in some offices and institutions. Awareness programmes are being conducted all around the world against this habit.
Though the public ban on smoking is an individual constraint to one's freedom, considering the passive effects of smoking I would strongly agree with the ban. In my view, this would be a punitive measure to safeguard the health and wealth of the public or the society.
Sample 3:
Smoking has inevitably been a concern of governments around the globe considering how to manage and educate smoking people. This is due largely to the danger of the substance contained in cigarettes, nicotine. As its drawback may also occur for the people near the smokers, policies related to this, particularly in public places, should be taken into account; whether it should be banned or not.
I personally think that forbidding such a dangerous activity will be much more beneficial, as it can prevent others from developing a vulnerable respiratory system. Moreover, this can keep the places so clean that people could always find them fascinating with less air pollution. However, governments should consciously provide some special places which, in this case, can be used for smoking.
On the other hand, people who have currently become addicted to smoke would find it hard to avoid smoking in such places. As a result, they may smoke, breaking the rule and not even feeling guilty. For this reason, there are two steps then to encounter this probable emerging problem. First, some strict laws and appropriate punishments, such as to pay more tax or to give any charity orphans or others needing. Second, education is one of the most prominent and essential ways to change people’s belief in terms of having their cigarette burnt.
However, banning such activity in public places is not merely a way to prevent others from harming smoke, but it will, to a larger extent, possibly be able to elevate people’s awareness of how dangerous smoking is.
To sum up, despite it being difficult for smokers to quit, the policy which bans smoking in public places should be applied in order to save others. Nonetheless, people’s education in terms of the drawbacks of smoking is a part of this aim.
Sample 4:
Smoking has been a major public health issue for decades, and despite numerous efforts to discourage the habit, it continues to be a prevalent problem in society. Not only does smoking harm the individual who partakes in the habit, but it also poses a significant risk to those who are in close proximity to the smoker. For this reason, many argue that smoking should be banned in public places in order to protect the health and well-being of the general population.
First and foremost, it is widely known that smoking causes a myriad of health issues for the individual who smokes. From lung cancer to heart disease, the negative impact of smoking on one's health is undeniable. However, what is often overlooked is the fact that secondhand smoke can also have serious consequences for non-smokers. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), secondhand smoke contains over 7,000 chemicals, hundreds of which are toxic and about 70 that can cause cancer. When non-smokers are exposed to these harmful chemicals, they are at an increased risk for developing the same health issues as smokers, including lung cancer, heart disease, and respiratory problems. This means that not only are smokers jeopardizing their own health, but they are also putting those around them in harm's way.
Furthermore, smoking in public places can have a negative impact on the overall environment. Cigarette butts, which are the most common form of litter, contain toxic chemicals that can leach into the soil and water, posing a threat to wildlife and polluting the ecosystem. In addition, the smoke itself contributes to air pollution, which can have detrimental effects on the environment and public health. By implementing a ban on smoking in public places, we can reduce the amount of secondhand smoke that non-smokers are exposed to and mitigate the environmental impact of smoking.
While some may argue that a ban on smoking in public places infringes upon an individual's right to smoke, it is important to consider the greater good of the population. The potential health risks and environmental impact of smoking far outweigh the desire of an individual to smoke in public spaces. By implementing a ban on smoking in public places, we can protect the health and well-being of both smokers and non-smokers, as well as the environment.
In conclusion, smoking not only harms the smoker, but also poses a significant risk to those who are nearby. With the potential health risks and environmental impact in mind, it is clear that smoking should be banned in public places. By doing so, we can create a healthier and safer environment for all members of society.
Sample 5:
In the present era, there is a rising trend of smoking, especially among the younger generation. Smoking has evident detrimental effects on both the smoker and the people in his surroundings. It is claimed that smoking should be prohibited in public areas. I strongly agree that smoking should be banned publicly to prevent its negative aspects on people.
To begin, there are many drawbacks of smoking which have progressive impacts on both individual and environmental level. First and foremost, it increases the risk of many health related issues in human beings, due to presence of disease producing chemicals in tobacco . For instance, a rising trend of lung related diseases, like tuberculosis and lung cancer, has been reported in smokers. Furthermore, smoke not only damages the body of the smoker, but also results in many unfavourable outcomes in the surrounding people. Moreover, it is very distressful and challenging for non-smokers to work in smoking places. So, there is urgent need to halt smoking in populated areas.
There is, however, a faction that claims that there are some challenges in preventing public smoking. Firstly, many resources will be consumed to construct specified smoking areas to restrict smoking at workplace and other public places. Simultaneously, there might be no checks and balances on people who are constrained to stay in specific smoking places.
To recapitulate, although there are few disadvantages of stopping people from smoking publicly, it has many beneficial impacts. I strongly agree to halt smoking in populated areas because it will remarkably decline the percentage of health related problems. Moreover, in the same way, it can aid in developing a comfortable environment at the workplace, as well as at other public places like shopping malls, restaurants and public transport.
Sample 6:
In the contemporary era, it is a moot point that smoking has detrimental effects on the smoker as well as the people living around him. A significant chunk of the community welcomes the conception, whereas the remaining members oppose the same. In this essay, I will explain this point of view in detail with the relevant examples to support my argument.
I am in agreement to a large extent with the aforementioned notion. Multifarious reasons can be discussed to justify my stance. The most conspicuous one is the smoker himself welcomes deadly diseases like cancer (mouth and lungs), kidney failure to his body. For instance, a cigarette contains killing components like tobacco, nicotine, and carbon monoxide these destroy the airbus of the lungs. As a consequence, a person’s digestive system starts to stop working. Its impacts do not appear overnight but if its consumption lasts for years a brutal death can knock at your door. Additionally, it is more harmful to passive smokers. To illustrate this, I would quote an instance of my friend who is suffering from lung cancer. However, he had never smoked in his life. He got infected just because his father is an active smoker. Having lived in the same house inhaling cigarette smoke he got affected.
On the other hand, I do have some grounds against the central idea. First and foremost, rationale is it may bring some of the businesses to an end. For instance, pubs and discos are usually visited by a proportion of 80% of smokers. If it is banned completely, it will wash off the above-mentioned businesses.
To put it in a nutshell, I personally believe that it is difficult to persuade people to quit but it must be prohibited in public places. Moreover, in clubs, there should be a separate area for smoking so passive smokers would not suffer.
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.