Câu hỏi:
11/01/2025 142The first graph shows the number of train passengers from 2000 to 2009; the second compares the percentage of trains running on time and target in the period.
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 upper line graph details how many passengers commuted by train whilst the lower one compares the proportion of trains operating on time with a fixed target of 95%. The statistics were recorded in an unspecified location over a 9-year period starting from 2000 to 2009.
The initial impression from the graph is that despite following an erratic trend over the years, the figure for train passengers saw an overall increase. In addition, acknowledging the presence of a baseline at 95%, the percentage of train running punctually achieved and exceeded the target from 2002 to 2004 and again from 2008 to 2009.
With respect to the first graph, starting off at around 36 million in 2000, the number of passengers experienced a short-term increase of 5 million in 2002 prior to a pullback to its original value in 2003. This figure was then fluctuating in an upward trajectory with a peak of 47 million in 2007 before declining and finishing at around 42 million at the end of the time frame.
A glance at the second graph shows that only 92% of trains ran on time back in 2000, and the situation was improved in 2002 onwards when the figure for actual on-time trains matched the expected 95% standard line and even exceeded it at 96% in 2004. However, this did not last long as this proportion dramatically fell short of target to a trough of 92% in 2006 before gathering pace to recover and reach the highest point of 97% in 2008 and 2009.
Sample 2:
The line charts illustrate the number of railway commuters, and the actual rate of punctual trains compared to the set goal, between 2000 and 2009. Overall, more people used trains over the given period. Additionally, the proportion of trains arriving on time increased, despite only fluctuating for the first six years.
Regarding passenger traffic, approximately 36 million individuals opted to use trains in 2000. After this, the figure rose moderately to over just 40 million in the following two years, before dropping back to about 36 million in 2003. Subsequently, it surged to a peak of roughly 46 million by 2005, followed by a significant decrease to less than 40 million in 2008. A minimal recovery in the end saw the number of commuters reach around 41 million.
Concerning the punctuality rate, 92% of trains were on time in 2000 and this figure rose considerably to 95% by 2002, which was the target for the whole period. After ascending continuously to 96% by 2004, it plunged back to 92% in 2006. Finally, the proportion of trains arriving on schedule rocketed to 97% in 2008 and remained stable for the last year of the period.
Sample 3:
The first line graph illustrates the figures for rail users between 2000 and 2009. The second graph shows the percentage of trains being punctual in comparison with the target over the same period.
It is clear that the figures in both graphs fluctuated over the nine-year period. Ridership peaked at the mid-period (2004 2005), while the percentage of punctual trains reached its peak towards the end of the period measured.
The number of people riding the train started at 36 million in 2000. Over the next five-year period, there was an overall increase in the figures for train passengers, despite a dip between 2002 and 2003. The ridership peaked at around 47 million in 2005, then declined gradually until 2008. From 2008 to the end of the period shown, the figure rose by roughly 1 million.
The target for the percentage of train punctuality was a constant 95% throughout the period. In the year 2000, the actual figure was 3% short. It picked up to meet the target in 2002, before taking a steady and gradual rise to 96% in the next 2 years. However, the figure took a sharp dive of 4% from 2004 to 2006 to be the same as the original 2000 figure. From 2006 to 2008, there was a surge in the proportion of punctual trains to reach its peak of 97%, before levelling off in the last year of the period.
Sample 4:
The given graphs provide data for train passengers between 2000 and 2009 as well as comparing the actual percentage of punctual trains with an established target.
Overall, the number of passengers travelling by train fluctuated during this period. Also, although there were variations in the percentage of on-time trains, figures largely stood below the expected level.
Starting at 35 million in 2000, the number of rail passengers witnessed a small rise to 40 million in 2002, followed by a slide back to the starting point a year later. Another increase took place until 2005, peaking at 45 million, then a continuous decline until 2008, before a minimal rise to 40 million terminated the period.
The standardised proportion of punctual trains was 95%, which was met for the first time in 2002. Good performance extended for a few more years before the figure plunged to as low as 92.2% in 2006. However, immediately in the next year, performance started to recover, exceeding the target by 5 percentage points in 2008 and remaining there until 2009.
Sample 5:
The charts show how many passengers traveled by train between 2000 and 2009, along with the punctuality rate of trains.
Overall, there was an upward fluctuation in the number of rail passengers during the given period. Additionally, except for the period between 2004 and 2006, more trains ran punctually. Although the punctuality target remained unchanged, it was either achieved or exceeded only from 2002 to 2005 and again during the last two years of the period in question.
At the beginning of the period, 40 billion people traveled by train, after which it had risen steadily, reaching a peak of roughly 49 billion by 2005, despite a slight drop in 2003. Between 2005 and 2008, a gradual decline of about 9 billion passengers was witnessed, with a subsequent recovery to approximately 45 billion in the final year.
During the whole period, the punctuality goal was consistently set at 95%. The percentage of trains being punctual, meanwhile, increased considerably from 92% initially to 96% 4 years later, followed by a substantial fall to the former level in 2005. Thereafter, the figure soared to a high of 97% in 2008 before leveling off toward the end of the time frame.
Sample 6:
The given image presents two-line graphs related to train transportation over a decade, from 2000 to 2009. The first graph depicts the number of train passengers per year, measured in billions, while the second graph illustrates the percentage of trains that operated on schedule, alongside a target performance line for comparison.
Overall, while the number of passengers using trains did not change dramatically from 2000 to 2009, the on-time performance of trains exhibited significant fluctuations, with periods of both underperformance and overachievement in relation to the set target.
From the first graph, it is evident that the number of train passengers fluctuated throughout the period but did not exhibit a clear trend of increase or decrease over the years. Passenger numbers started at around 40 billion in 2000, experienced minor fluctuations, reaching a peak slightly above 40 billion around 2004, and ended the period with a similar value to when it started.
The second graph, which measures punctuality, shows more variability. In 2000, about 93% of trains ran on time. This figure dropped to approximately 91% in the following year and then followed a downward trend, reaching the lowest point at just above 90% in 2002. A significant recovery occurred in 2003, with on-time performance soaring to around 96%, well above the standard target line set at 95%. After 2003, there was a marked decrease, hitting the lowest punctuality rate of the decade in 2007, with less than 92% of trains on time. However, there was a remarkable improvement in the following two years, with the percentage of trains running on time surpassing the target in 2009.
Sample 7:
The initial line graph provides an overview of the changes in the number of train commuters, with the second graph showing the punctuality of this means of transportation compared to a fixed target from 2000 to 2009.
Overall, there were upward fluctuations in the volume of passengers, but this was predominantly due to inconsistencies in train punctuality.
It was expected that a target of 95% punctuality was set for all trains. However, in the first year, only 92% of trains were on time, which later steadily increased to a satisfactory 95.5% in 2003. Over the specified time period, there was a gradual rise in the figure for travelers to approximately 5 million in 2002, before dropping slightly below the initial data in 2003.
During the subsequent two years, there was a remarkable surge in the quantity of passengers, reaching a peak of around 47 million in 2005, followed by a significant decline of about four million. In terms of punctuality, the rate was 96% in 2004 but experienced a minor decrease in 2006. In the last three years, the passenger number stabilized at around 43 million, with a progressive improvement in the proportion of on-time trains, ultimately reaching an impressive 97%.
Sample 8:
The upper graph illustrates the changes in the number of passengers travelling by train in an unspecified geographical location, and the lower graph shows the proportion of trains running on time in a 10-year period from 2000 to 2009 compared to the fixed target of 95%.
Overall, the number of travellers using trains showed an unsteady upward trend. The rate of trains running on time was also erratic, meeting or exceeding the target from 2002 to 2005, and again from 2008 to 2009.
In the first four years, the number of train travellers rose from around 37 million to its first peak of about 37 million in 2002, before dropping to just below its starting number in 2003. Also in that period, the rate of on-time trains went from an inadequate 92% to a sufficient 95.5%. During the next three years, train passengers rose sharply and hit the most significant peak of around 47 million in 2005; thereafter the figure started declining by approximately four million. In terms of running time efficiency, the rate was 96% in 2004, but later fell drastically to 92% in 2006.
In the last three years, the number of passengers stabilized at around 43 million while the proportion of on-time trains improved gradually and eventually plateaued at 97%.
Sample 9:
The line charts illustrate train passenger numbers and the figure for train punctuality between 2000 and 2009.
Overall, the number of passengers opting for trains fluctuated mildly over time. It can also be seen that the proportion of trains adhering to the schedule oscillated considerably, with half of the time punctuality goal not being met.
The number of train commuters fluctuated around 40 million people over the period. In 2000, 38
million travelers chose this vehicle as their means of transportation. This figure rose slightly, but
fell back again to 38 million in 2003. An increasing use of railways was reported in the following 2 years with trains attracting the highest number of customers in 2005, at 46 million. After a period of 3-year decline and 1-year growth in its users, trains received 41 million people in 2009.
Looking at the second paragraph, the punctuality target of trains was invariably 95%. In 2000, only 92% of total trains ran on time. Over the next 4 years, the proportion of punctual trains rose substantially, meeting the goal of 95% in 2002 before exceeding the target by 1% in 2004. The percentage then declined considerably to 92% in 2006, and train punctuality didn't meet the target again until late 2007. By 2009, the punctuality figure had increased to 97%, 2% higher than the goal.
Sample 10:
The provided graphs depict the trends in the number of train passengers and the percentage of trains running on time compared to the target from 2000 to 2009.
Overall, the number of travellers using trains showed an unsteady upward trend, with minor fluctuations throughout the period. Similarly, the rate of trains running on time exhibited erratic behavior, meeting or surpassing the target intermittently.
In 2000, approximately 38 million people travelled by rail. This number fluctuated until it peaked at nearly 50 million passengers in 2005. Subsequently, there was a decrease to 40 million passengers in 2008, followed by a slight rise to around 42 million in 2009.
Regarding the punctuality of trains, in 2000, the rate of trains running on time stood at 92%, slightly below the target of 95%. This rate gradually increased to 96% in 2004 before dropping to 92% in 2006. However, there was a significant rise to 97% by 2008, maintaining this level until 2009.
Sample 11:
The provided charts offer insights into the passenger volumes on trains from 2000 to 2009 and their punctuality compared to the set targets.
Overall, it is evident that there were fluctuations in passenger numbers and punctuality rates over the specified period.
In 2000, approximately 38 million passengers opted for rail travel. This figure experienced an upward trend, reaching its zenith at nearly 50 million in 2005, before a subsequent decline to 40 million in 2008. The year 2009 saw a moderate resurgence, with approximately 42 million passengers.
In terms of punctuality, trains achieved a 92% on-time rate in 2000, falling short of the 95% target. The subsequent years witnessed a progressive increase, peaking at 96% in 2004. However, there was a dip in punctuality to 92% in 2006, lower than the standard target of 95%. The subsequent years saw a commendable recovery to surpass the 95% target, with rates reaching 97% in 2008 and maintaining this level thereafter.
Sample 12:
The line graphs illustrate how many people traveled by train between 2000 and 2009 and how punctual trains were during this period.
Overall, it can be seen that both the number of passengers and the punctuality of the railway system fluctuated over the period shown.
Regarding train usage, the number of travelers varied in the first half of the period, after which it grew noticeably and reached its peak of over 47 million in 2005. However, the following three consecutive years witnessed a slow decline of about 7 million in the number of train commuters before the figure rose to roughly 42 million in 2009.
In terms of punctuality, despite the expectation that 95% of trains would run on time, the rate was 92% at the beginning of the period. The figure then increased, met its objective in 2002, and continued to rise to 96% in 2004. However, the railway system failed short of its target again between 2005 and 2007. Afterward, punctuality significantly improved and exceeded the aim in the last two years of the period (at 97%).
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)