Câu hỏi:
11/01/2025 316The charts below show the performance of spending on roads and transport in four countries from 1990 to 2005.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. Write at least 150 words.
Câu hỏi trong đề: 2000 câu trắc nghiệm tổng hợp Tiếng Anh 2025 có đáp án !!
Quảng cáo
Trả lời:
Sample 1:
The bar chart illustrates how much the governments in 4 different countries spent on roads and transport in the years 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005.
Overall, it is apparent that Portugal has the highest governmental spending on road and transport while the UK possesses the lowest statistics among the 4 countries.
Specifically, Portugal’s government allocated more than a quarter of the total spending on transportation in 1990, which was about 5% percent higher than the second-highest spender - Italy, with 22 percent. Meanwhile the UK and the USA’s expenditures were significantly lower at 10 and 11 percent respectively, which were 2.5 times lower than that of Portugal.
Regarding the changes over the years, the figures of Portugal declined steadily over the 15-year period to exactly 20 percent in 2005. In comparison, the corresponding figures from Italy and the UK also displayed a general downward trend throughout the studied period with the exception of a short increase in 2000. In contrast, the expenditure figures of the USA demonstrated an upward trend, rising to 15 percent in 2005, despite dropping a minimal 1% in 1995.
Sample 2:
The provided bar chart delineates the changes in government expenditure on roads and transport across several nations from 1990 to 2005.
Throughout this period, there was a consistent downward trend in state investment in roads and transport in Portugal, whereas the United States witnessed an increase. The remaining two nations demonstrated varying patterns in government spending within this sector. Portugal consistently upheld its status of the highest spender among the countries scrutinized.
In mainland Europe, Portugal initially allotted approximately 27% of its national budget to roads and transport in 1990, a substantially larger proportion compared to other nations. However, this percentage experienced a gradual decline, reaching 24% by 1995 and further descending to slightly above 20% by the conclusion of the period. Conversely, the USA exhibited a different trajectory, initially undergoing a minor decrease in the first five years, but ultimately directing a higher proportion of public spending towards road and transport, culminating at 15%.
Italy portrayed a more fluctuating pattern in spending, diminishing from 22% to nearly 20% in 1995, rebounding to 23% in 2000, and then regressing to approximately 19% by 2005. The UK mirrored similar trends, initially allocating slightly over 10% of its total expenditure towards roads and transport, witnessing a minor reduction in 1995, an increase to 12% in 2000, but subsequently decreased spending to about 8% by 2005, maintaining the lowest spending among the listed nations.
Sample 3:
The given bar chart shows the proportion of government expenditure on road and transport in four countries (Italy, Portugal, UK, USA) every five years between 1990 and 2005.
Overall, it can be seen that governments in mainland Europe spent far more money on roads and transport than those in the UK and USA. It is also clear that the UK spent the least amount of money on roads and transport in all measured years.
In 1990, Portugal spent the most amount of money on roads and transport at approximately 27%, followed by Italy at about 22%, while the USA and UK both spent only around 10% of their government budget. In 1995, however, all countries reduced their road and transport spending by between 1-3%.
By 2000 while Portugal continued to reduce its road and transport spending down to around 22%, Italy had increased its spending to approximately 23%, overtaking Portugal as the leading spender on transport infrastructure in 2000. The UK and USA both had increased spending in 2000 by about 3%. In 2005, all countries except USA further reduced their spending with Portugal, Italy, UK and the USA at 20%, 19%, 8% and 15% respectively.
Sample 4:
The bar chart illustrates the proportion of expenditure by governments of Italy, Portugal, the UK and the USA on road and transport. The study compared the figures recorded between 1990 and 2005 with 5-year intervals.
On the whole, the proportion of government spending on road and transport generally declined in each country surveyed but the USA. It is also noticeable that the shares of money spent for this purpose by Italy and Portugal were significantly higher throughout the span than those of the other two countries.
The USA, in 1990, spent approximately 12% of its total expense on road and transport, which was 2% higher than the UK figure in the same year. Despite falling slightly by around 2% in 1995, the USA’s spending had risen noticeably to 15% by the final year.
Interestingly, the European countries in the research all followed a downward trend. Portugal, being the biggest spender in 1990 and 1995, decreased the proportion of the funds it channeled from around 27% to a fifth over the period. Similarly, Italy and the UK’s proportional investment in road and transport experienced a drop during the time frame from about 23% to just under a fifth and from a tenth to about 7%, respectively, though each showed a rise in expenditure in 2000.
Sample 5:
The bar graph illustrates the proportion of governmental expenditure on road and transportation infrastructure across four nations - Italy, Portugal, the UK, and the USA - from 1990 to 2005.
Overall, Portugal emerges as a consistent frontrunner in the allocation of budgetary resources to transport infrastructure, leading in all years except 2000. In contrast, Italy and the UK experienced significant volatility in their spending patterns, ultimately trending downwards, while the USA demonstrated a rising commitment to transport infrastructure, particularly in the latter half of the observed period.
In the initial year of 1990, the disparities in spending were stark: Portugal allocated nearly 27%, Italy about 22%, and the UK only 10% of their respective national budgets to this sector. Over the ensuing decade and a half, Portugal’s investment displayed a gradual decline, settling at around 20% by 2005, indicating a notable reduction from its initial high.
During the mid-1990s, investment levels in Italy, the UK, and the USA dipped slightly, only to surge by approximately 30% in the next five years. By the end of the period in 2005, except for the USA, each country recorded a decrease in the percentage of their budget dedicated to road and transportation. The USA’s data distinctly reflects an increasing trajectory, prioritizing transportation infrastructure towards the close of the period reviewed.
Sample 6:
The presented bar chart delineates the percentage of governmental expenditure on road and transport infrastructure across four countries - Italy, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States - from 1990 to 2005.
Observing the data, Portugal consistently allocated the highest percentage of its budget to road and transport, except in 2000. Italy and the UK showed considerable fluctuations in their allocations, with a general downward trend, while the US displayed a progressive increase in spending in this sector towards the latter part of the period.
Initially, in 1990, the allocations were notably diverse with Portugal investing approximately 27%, Italy around 22%, and the UK a mere 10% of their national budgets in this sector. Portugal's investment saw a declining pattern, decreasing to about 20% by 2005, illustrating a significant reduction over the 15 years.
Conversely, after a decline in the mid-1990s, investments in road and transport by Italy, the UK, and the USA saw a rise of approximately 30% in the subsequent five years. By 2005, however, apart from the USA, all countries experienced a reduction in the portion of their budgets dedicated to this sector. The data from the US indicates a clear prioritization of transport infrastructure in the final years of the survey period.
Sample 7:
The bar graph shows the proportion of national funds spent by the four distinct countries - namely, Italy, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States - on roads and transportation between 1990 and 2005.
With the exception of 2000, Portugal registered the highest spending on road and transportation sector throughout the 15-year period. Another interesting point is that, whereas Italy and the UK had significant oscillations and subsequently a decline in their road and transport spending, USA saw an increased spending in this sector during the final five years.
In 1990, Portugal, Italia and the UK, respectively, spent about 27, 22, and 10 percent of their national budget for the sake of road and transportation. Portugal's spending in this area dropped by almost 15 percent per five-years throughout this period and, in 2005, it made up barely 20% of the whole national budget, down from almost 27% in the first year, 1990.
The investment on transportation infrastructure in the other three nations, Italy, the UK, and the USA, decreased somewhat in 1995 before increasing by roughly 30% during the next five years. With the exception of the United States, all three of the other nations had a decline in their national proportion of expenditure on road and transportation in 2005.
Sample 8:
The bar chart tracks the changes in the proportion of government outlay on road and transport in four different nations between 1990 and 2005. Overall, except for the USA, a downward trend was registered in the expenditure on road and transport in almost all surveyed countries. Furthermore, Italy and Portugal distributed the most financial resources in this sector throughout the period shown.
Regarding the two leading nations, about 27% of Portuguese government’s budget was allocated to road and transport in 1990, far surpassing the percentage of the Italian one by approximately 5%. During the next decade, however, a notable increase to nearly 24% was witnessed in the figure for Italy, allowing it to overtake Portugal’s first rank in 2000. By 2005, both countries underwent dramatic declines in their spending on this department, with data recorded only under the 20% threshold each.
Turning to the remaining countries, in 1990, road and transport occupied just around one tenth of government expenditure in the UK and USA, which both experienced substantial growths to above 13% over the following 10 years. Nonetheless, at the end of the time scale, the figure for America continued to surge to 15%, roughly double that for the UK, where merely less than 8% of its budget was allotted to road and transport.
Sample 9:
The bar graph illustrates the distribution of government spending on roadways and transportation infrastructure in four different nations between 1990 and 2005, at five-yearly intervals. Overall, the spending of America increased over the given period, whereas other countries decreased. Additionally, the highest investment was seen in Portugal except for the third year when Italian authorities spent a larger share.
Portugal and Italy were the major investors in the traffic system. Portugal ranked first at nearly 27% at the start, after which their expenditure fell consistently to precisely 20% by 2005. Similarly, the figure for Italy dropped from approximately 22% in 1990 to 20% in 1995. After reaching a peak of roughly 23% in 2000, it plunged to a low of just under one-fifth by the end.
Concerning the other countries which spent significantly less, the British authorities allotted the lowest rate of 10% in 1990 and later it further decreased minimally by about 1% in the following five years. Despite recovering to a high of around 12% after five years, it declined by about 4% in the end. In contrast, the American government allocated approximately 11% of their state budget in 1990, followed by a slight drop to 10% five years later before increasing moderately by 5% in the final year.
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)