Câu hỏi:
11/01/2025 216Câu hỏi trong đề: 2000 câu trắc nghiệm tổng hợp Tiếng Anh 2025 có đáp án !!
Quảng cáo
Trả lời:
Sample 1:
The diagrams illustrate a pair of stone cutting implements, namely tool A and tool B, which find their origins in two differing periods of human history. They were crafted through the technique of chipping away small fragments of stone.
Overall, there were noticeable differences between the two tools, with the one from 0.8 million years ago having greater dimensions, less rugged surfaces, and more uniform edges in comparison with its earlier counterpart.
Looking first at tool A, which dates back to 1.4 million years ago, it appears to be highly primitive. This artifact measures approximately 7 centimeters in height and 3 centimeters in width, and its thickness falls within the range of 2 to 3 centimeters. Similar to the later version, tool A features a rounded base, tapering toward the top. The latter, however, has much rougher surfaces when viewed from the front and the back, thus contributing to its more jagged edges and a less defined pointed end.
Tool B, on the other hand, shows a more refined appearance, resembling a teardrop, as its tip is notably sharper while the sides are also smoother. In contrast to tool A, the front and back of tool B look somewhat similar, with less surface roughness. Furthermore, Tool B is about 5 centimeters longer and 2 centimeters wider than its predecessor, although the thickness is almost exactly the same.
Sample 2:
The diagrams chart the evolution of a cutting tool from its rudimentary form 1.4 million years ago to a more refined version 0.8 million years ago during the Stone Age.
Initially resembling a natural stone, the tool underwent significant enhancements, culminating in a more efficient and effective cutting instrument.
Approximately 1.4 million years ago, the tool took on a basic form, closely looking like a natural stone, indicating minimal crafting. Tool A displayed an oval shape from both the front and side views, with a coarse texture and blunt edges, suggesting it was not refined.
Over the subsequent 0.8 million years, significant improvements were made. The tool evolved into a spear-shaped implement with a much sharper tip and edges. Although Tool A maintained the same length at 10 centimeters, it featured a smoother surface and increased overall width. These enhancements markedly increased its cutting efficiency, making this version far superior.
Sample 3:
The diagram presents a comparison of prehistoric tools dating back 1.4 and 0.8 million years ago. Overall, the older tool is less refined with rougher edges, while the newer one appears smoother and better preserved.
Comparing the two tools from the frontal view, the one from 1.4 million years ago is slightly narrower, displaying a less defined shape. The more recent one comes to a sharper point with clearly rounded sides.
The side view reveals that the older tool is also bulkier with more jagged indents than the much smoother one from 800,000 years ago. Finally, in terms of the back view there is a distinctive contrast as the newer has fewer major cracks and closely mirrors its front side. The older tool, on the other hand, is approximately half the size overall and is chipped down greatly in the back.
Sample 4:
The presented illustration demonstrates some of the first cutting stone tools ever invented and how they transformed and improved over the course of human civilization – from 1.4 million years ago to 800 thousand years ago. It is clear that the same tool underwent radical changes and became sharper, better and more effective through the ages.
The stone tool made 1.4 million years ago was more rounded at the top and bottom edges. From the front and back view of the tool, it is clear that the diameter in the middle was almost 5 cm, and towards the top and bottom, it was around 3 cm wide. The side view shows that the tool was wider in the middle, with a diameter of approximately 3 cm, and it tapered towards the top, and the bottom ends. The back of the stone had fewer cuts than the front, and they were also particularly sharp or fine, decreasing their overall capabilities.
800 thousand years ago, this tool developed into a sharper, more refined one. The front and the back view show that the maximum diameter of the tool was the same as in the older tool, but it was more towards the lower side. The bottom tapered into a 1 cm point, but the top tapered more sharply into a 1 cm point. The side view clarifies that it was much less in width (1.5 cm) than the older tool. The stone was more chiseled than the previous one.
Sample 5:
The illustration details the evolution of stone cutting tools used by prehistoric men in the Stone Age.
As is evident from the diagram, the key difference between the cutting tools in the two periods is the size, with the latter version becoming noticeably larger. Tool B also appears more refined than tool A in terms of shape and sharpness.
1.4 million years ago, the cutting tool was thin, measured 7-8 centimeters in length, and did not display much craftsmanship. They were also rather uneven in appearance: the front and the back were shaped differently, and the surface appears to have been quite rough.
600,000 years later, it is obvious that the cutting tools used by man in the Stone Age had become significantly more advanced. First of all, they were larger, measuring 10-11 centimeters in length, and had a more definite tear-drop shape: fat at the base and tapering aggressively toward a sharp tip whereas the prior versions tended to be obtuse. Second, both front and back sides were ground more evenly and smoothly. It would also seem that man had learnt to sharpen the sides of their cutting tools as well.
Sample 6:
The provided illustrations delineate a comparative analysis of two distinct Stone Age cutting implements, denoted as Tool A and Tool B, with origins dating back to disparate epochs in human evolution, specifically 1.4 million and 0.8 million years ago, respectively. It is imperative to underscore that this temporal span of 0.6 million years had witnessed a discernible evolution in the characteristics of these implements, most notably manifesting in alterations pertaining to their dimensions, forms, and surface attributes.
The initial impression from the first figure is that Tool A appears to exhibit a rudimentary and austere design, reflective of limited craftsmanship. This artifact assumed an undefined shape, possessing a circular base that gradually tapers towards its apex, with the widest section positioned at its center, presumably to facilitate grip and manipulation. Tool A is recorded to possess dimensions, with a height and width encompassing approximately 7 and 3 centimeters, respectively, while its thickness falls within the range of 2 to 3 centimeters. A comprehensive examination of its anterior and posterior aspects revealed rough surfaces and jagged edges, with a rather blunt pointed end.
Subsequent to a temporal elapse of 600,000 years, it is apparent that this cutting tool has undergone a substantial transformation, attaining a refined appearance resembling a teardrop. In comparison with the previous version, Tool B exhibits an elongation of approximately 2 to 3 centimeters in both length and width whereas the thickness remained relatively unchanged. A meticulous inspection from diverse angles reveals that its surfaces have transcended their primitive ruggedness, now presenting smoother and more finely contoured edges, along with a notably pointed tip. This transformation implies an advanced utility in comparison to the antecedent.
It is intriguing to note that Tool A had experienced a remarkable transformation from a rudimentary object into an enhanced knife-like cutting implement over the course of 0.6 million years. This transformation underscores the adaptive capacities of early humans, delineating the trajectory of technological progress in the field of tool manufacture and utilization.
Sample 7:
The diagram depicts ancient cutting tools made from stone by early humans from 1.4 million and 0.8 million years ago, which were viewed from the front, side and back with length measurement in centimeters.
Generally, it can be seen that the tool from 800 thousand years ago was larger, longer and more well made than its earlier counterpart.
Approximately 1.4 million years ago, the cutting tool was relatively small with 7cm in length. From the front and back view, the overall shape was irregular, the stone surface was rugged while the side view showed an uneven edge.
The tool saw notable improvements 600 thousand years later. The stone blade was 1.5 times longer at nearly 10cm in length. The shape was more defined, which closely resembled a water droplet, and the surface was noticeably smoother viewing from the front and back. The side view also showed a sharpened edge for better cutting.
Sample 8:
The given diagram compares stone age cutting tools at 1.4 million and 0.8 million years ago. Overall, the latter one appears to be bigger in size and its shape was also better refined with sharper, more uniform edges and a pointed end.
To begin with, tool A, dated 1.4 million years ago, has a height and width of about 7.5 and 3 centimeters respectively, and is around 1-2cm thick. From the front view, there were large random cuts which created rough edges and a tapered end. From the other sides, similar cuts can be seen, and a sharp end was formed at the top of the tool.
Turning to Tool B, we can see that after 0.6 million years, the cutting tool had doubled in size, with a height of about 10 centimeters and a width of slightly over 6 centimeters, whereas it retained a similar thickness. A look from the front and the back of tool B reveals that its outer shape became significantly finer with a sharp pointy top and a smooth curved bottom. Its side view also witnessed a remarkable transformation which made the tool take the shape of a leaf with a sharp edge running across the tool.
Sample 9:
The presented pictures illustrate how cutting tools in the Stone Age evolved from 1.4 million years ago to 0.8 million years ago.
Overall, it can be concluded that in over 0.6 million years, the tools witnessed a dramatic change both in size and shape. In addition, these developments increased the effectiveness of the cutting instruments.
Regarding the front view, tool A had rough edges and no clear shape, whereas tool B had a symmetrical tear-like shape along with a pointy tip. This feature would give tool B an edge over tool A when it comes to cutting food or penetrating things.
In terms of the side view and back view, tool B proved to be significantly larger as compared to tool A, which would come in handy when cutting large products. With regard to the edges, tool A and tool B showed a manifest difference. While the former’s edges were rugged and blunt, the latter’s were significantly sharper, more refined, and knife-like.
Sample 10:
The two pictures compare 2 Stone Age cutting tools which were probably made and used by ancient people.
In general, while tool A was relatively simple and rudimentary, tool B was more refined.
First, 1.4 million years ago, tool A’s measurements were approximately 9 cm in length and 5 cm in width. From the front view, it had a rough surface. With a tapering shape, its biggest part was the middle, while the two ends were much smaller. The side view shows its thickness at about 2.5 cm. In the back, the large bottom part was perhaps the handle, while the pointy tip served the cutting purpose.
Dating back to 800,000 thousand years ago, tool B was nearly 12 cm long and 8 cm wide, which was significantly larger than tool A. From the front view, tool B closely resembled a water drop with a pointy tip and a round bottom. From the side view, both the edge and the tip seem straight and sharper than tool A. The back view clearly displays the bigger size of tool B compared to tool A.
Sample 11:
The diagram illustrates the evolution of the cutting tool during the period from 1.4 million years ago to 0.8 million years ago in the Stone Age.
It can be seen that a number of upgrades were made in the shape and size of the tool so that it could become a more effective cutting instrument.
1.4 million years ago, the tool was relatively primitive and resembled a natural stone, which suggests that little crafting was done. From the front and side view, Tool A had an oval shape, rough surface and blunt edges, hence presumably the inferior version compared to Tool B.
After 0.6 million years, the tool was upgraded into a spear-shaped instrument with the tip and edges being much sharper. While Tool B was 10 centimeters long – the same length as Tool A, the surface of Tool B was crafted to be smoother and the overall width to be larger. Therefore, these features rendered this version more superior in terms of cutting efficiency.
Sample 12:
The diagram illustrates the development of the cutting tool from two different time periods within the Stone Age.
Although the overall size and shape of the two cutting tools are very similar, the cutting tool from the latter time period shows some distinct improvements.
Tool A is a depiction of a Stone Age cutting tool used approximately 1.4 million years ago, while tool B is from a later part of the Stone Age approximately 0.8 million years ago. Both cutting tools are similar in shape and size, roughly 10cm in length. However, tool A looks to be quite a crude implement, while tool B appears to have been refined into a more effective cutting device.
From the front and rear view, tool B appears to be much wider than tool A and has a rounder body shape. The cutting edges also appear to be more distinct and symmetrical. The side view shows a distinct difference in the thickness of the two tools, with tool B significantly slimmer than tool A.
Sample 13:
The pictures describe the evolution of Stone Age cutting tools between 1.4 million and 0.8 million years ago. It can be seen that the latter design had seen vast improvements in the size, shape and finishing quality.
Tool A, which dated back to 1.4 million years ago, was rather small and rudimentary. At about 7cm in length, the tool was thin and did not display much craftsmanship. The front and back view were plain with only some slight chiselling effort while the side was rough and not very indicative of a cutting utensil.
Tool B showed many updated features compared to the older version. First of all, it was larger and sturdier due to a better water drop design with a broad base and pointy top. Second, both front and back sides were grounded more evenly and smoothly. Finally, although the tool’s thickness stayed relatively the same after 0.6 million years, the side edge was undoubtedly much more finely sharpened.
Sample 14:
The pictures describe the cutting tools created by our ancestors at two different ages.
Tool A was made approximately 1.4 million years ago. It was like an animal tooth about 8 cm long with a rough surface. It may be easy to hold but it was barely sharp enough. As is shown, the front part of the cutting tool was rather broad, and its top area was a little smaller than the bottom. Seen from the side, it was just as narrow as a stick. Moreover, the back part was much flatter than the front part.
Tool B was widely used 0.8 million years ago. Both of the two tools were made of stone. However, Tool B had been better developed than the previous one. It was about 12 cm long. Its front part had been smoother with many little points, which made it similar to the surface of a diamond. Observed from the side, it had got a very acute top, which was very useful for slicing meat. In addition, the back part was even much flatter than that of the older tool.
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)