Today, the high sales of popular consumer goods reflect the power of advertising and not the

real needs of the society in which they are sold.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

This task was taken from the book Cambridge IELTS 6 Student's Book with answers:
Examination papers from University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations (IELTS Practice Tests)
by Cambridge ESOL.

Nowadays millions of companies produce billions of products and the role of advertising is quite
obvious. Ads help consumers to find the goods or services of their needs. However, do our needs
grow equally fast as the number of products? Some market analysts insist modern commercials
are not merely matchmakers of a product and a consumer, but actively interfere with buyer’s
desires, developing artificial needs.

Undoubtedly, advertisement guides people through the market, serves those who do not have
time to learn differences between goods. These products are probably the same, but loyalty to a
particular brand, formed by a commercial helps make a choice. When a person buys one mobile
phone out of 50 models, he thinks he made his choice himself. But that was a commercial who
told him about the features of this phone.

Nevertheless, ads not only inform us about new goods, but force people to want them. This can
be even useful, for example for someone who suffers from back pains and without commercials
he would never imagine there are new mattresses which could ease their pains.

Unfortunately, promoters now operate our minds more aggressively. Commercials no longer
promote products, but lifestyles. They told us to purchase things just because they are
fashionable or up to date with the image of successful person. And we buy new cars, gadgets and
clothes in order to match this image and not because old ones are no longer usable.

Personally I think that high sales of popular commodities are the result of new promotional
technologies. The best illustration of that is that everyone now is concerned mostly about how a
new mobile phone will reflect his personality, a new shirt – his image, or will a new car make
colleagues feel jealous.

292 words
Expected IELTS Band – 7

Some people believe that children’s leisure activities must be educational, otherwise they are a
complete waste of time.
Do you agree or disagree?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your experience.

Nowadays children spend so much time at school and attend various additional classes and this
makes some educational specialists feel pity for them. They suggest giving kids more spare time
to play and have fun. Meanwhile, there is an opinion that youngsters should do only those
activities that benefit their knowledge and educate them, and I totally agree with this point of
view.

Of course, the volume of the information children receive at school and ought to memorize is
enormous and they should be given some free time to relax. Playing with others is essential to
develop communication skills and this also gives young brains some rest.

Although, we have to admit that in our competitive world the more time a kid devotes to the
study process the better life he can achieve. There are ways to make playing with others very
educational and parents should encourage their children to play games which make brain work.
For example, kids could have a competition combining physical activity and some kind of trivia
on geography, like we had in our childhood. Moreover, even computer games can be very
intelligent. There are so many electronic entertainments which teach languages, gives
information on history, geography, that child addicted to computers could become very smart
and educated.

In addition, unattended kid hardly makes proper use of his leisure time. If it happens, children
just watch TV or get under peer pressure. They unfortunately do not have skills of analyzing and
filtering what is bad or what is good. Education through games instead makes them occupied and
in the same time teaches analyzing.

To conclude with, education through fun is not very exhausting for kids but its usefulness can be
great. It would be a shame to devote this time to the TV or other entertainment.

It has been proved that smoking kills. In some countries it has been made illegal for people to
smoke in all public places except in certain areas. All countries should make these rules.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

The idea of banning smoking from public places always was a very controversial one. Those
who defend smoking on streets and in offices refer to human rights and the fact that tobacco is
legal. Others hold an opinion that since there are undeniable proofs that cigarettes cause lethal
diseases not only to smokers but to surrounding people, smoking should be allowed only in
special places. I totally agree with the idea of making smoking legal in certain places only.

On the one hand, it is the society who makes smokers to smoke and it would be not fair just to
put them into exile and consider the problem solved. Since we sell them tobacco they should
have right to use it wherever they want.

On the other hand, those who do not smoke should have the right to breathe clean air. When
somebody is smoking cigarette, health of non-smokers is under attack. Personally I am a former
smoker, but even for me breathing tobacco smell is unbearable. It is not only makes people to
temporarily feel bad but also causes long term effect. There are researches showing that so called
‘passive smoking’ could be even worse for health than smoking itself. Causing damage to
anyone’s health is illegal, that is why there is no excuse for smoking in public places.

Another reason for this is the fact that not every legal action is allowed on public. Moral, cultural
and juridical limitations are exist. For example, there are toilets for people’s bladder and nobody
is allowed to urinate on streets. Tobacco is much more dangerous than that so there is no doubt
every country should consider moving smokers to special places.

To conclude with, every country must think of the wellbeing of its citizens and make steps to
protect them from dangerous effects of tobacco by banning smoking from public places.

The Art should be better funded by the government but there must be more control over where
the money goes. Discuss.

Since prehistoric ages The Art highlights our lives, adds beauty and happiness and cultivates the
taste among the people. However, nowadays creative projects became very pricey and can not
bring pay-off to its authors. Some people think that the government should pay for those projects
and, of course, observe precisely how those funds are being spent.

This is quite obvious that no structure except government knows nations cultural needs best. It
can evaluate which sphere of cultural life have the necessity of development and achieve its
goals of public loyalty by funding a specific field of The Art, controlling budget by giving
maintenance only to projects they are interested in.

However, funding The Art selectively can lead artists to the lack of freedom in expressing
themselves. In other words, then those who have power use money to regulate cultural life, it can
limit the imagination and put artists into borders they would be scared to cross. Thus, here comes
the censorship, which has nothing in common with the main democracy principles. For example,
similar situation was in the Soviet Union, there solely the government controlled The Art and
therefore the only career an artist could pursue is praising the Communist Party by his creations.

As an alternative of letting a government to control spending money on The Art, a non-

governmental independent organization could be established. It must consist of the best cultural
activists from a country. This would add a certain level of budget control and would guarantee
there are no limits for The Art.

To conclude with, I believe that funding The Art is one of the main tasks of a state, but the
purpose of it should be development, not making it to serve government political needs.

All education, primary, secondary and further education, should be free to all people and paid
for by the government.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

The opinion that every citizen should have the right to study at school or university for free is
very controversial one. Those, who disagree, refer to enormous expenditures of government in
case of establishing such laws. Although, I hold the viewpoint that not charging people for
education could become very beneficial for country and its economy.

First, young people from poor families could be very smart. Looking back to history and
biographies of distinguished people, raised in poverty can illustrate this best. Making schooling
available only for fortunate is not fair. Moreover, the state well-being could also be affected,
because there would be a lack of talented specialists, whose skills was not discovered and
developed by proper training.

Another advantage of making education free of charge is happiness of the nation. Inability of
individual to collect amount of money needed to pay school or university fees cause stress and
anxiety of the middle-class society, which can even keep them from having children. Nowadays
we can see that the lowest birthrate is in countries where prices of enrollment to highest
education institutions are very high. This clearly indicates the fact that citizens of rich countries
do not feel able to provide their future offspring proper education.

Finally, nothing seems to be more beneficial to economy than intelligent nation. Free courses and
study programs can prepare excellent specialists, who would work to bring profit themselves and
hence their country. That would surely compensate most expenses of state budget caused by
education of no charge.

To sum up, even though making all schools free can be very expensive for state economy,
advantages are invaluable. After several years such improvements would bring fruits of happy,
intelligent nation confident about its future.

Some people say that television is a very useful tool when it comes to education. Others argue
that television is a much overused, ineffective teacher.
Discuss both of these views and give your opinion as to the usefulness of television as an
educational tool.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or
experience.
You should write at least 250 words.

There is a lot of controversy about whether TV can play a role of teacher. Some people hold a
viewpoint that it can never be educational at all. Others, although, disagree, reffering to TV's
high potential of teaching through amusement.

As a matter of fact, television nowdays can hardly be called educational. All those talk shows
and soap operas we can see every day are completely waste of time and can even have negative
effects by distracting young and undisciplined people from their studies. Moreother, the most of
so called educational programms like National Geographic can not replace books and academic
lectures because they tend to entertain people and have not an aim to give deep and concentrated
knowledge.

Hovewer, TV can be a powerful mean of delivering information and a nice part of learning
process. Educational methodists have proved that the more senses are involved at the time of
studying, the more effective result can be achieved. Television produce both picture and sound,
so its usefulness is obvious. Many teachers already use this advantage actively by showing to
students videocassetes which go as supplimentary material to many language courses. So why
not to broadcast such movies through television?

The problem of ineffectiveness of television as educational tool is in fact not a problem of

television itself, but of people who decide the content of particular channel. It is hardly unlikely
that content directors would abandon their high profits and change talk shows to lectures and
video-lessons. Therefore, those, who insist on TVs uselessness maybe right, but let us not forget
that as technology improves new cheap ways of broadcasting appear, for instance video
podcasts. They can prove exclusive power of such learning tool as television.

Some people think children are more successful in foreign language studies than adults.
Discuss.

The viewpoint that children are better learners became almost a common sense, although it is not
always true in terms of learning foreign languages. When it comes to make an approach to, for
example, Japanese or French, adults have proven themselves superior learners because of their
experience of getting knowledge of their own language and their performance is generally better
motivated.
Every adult have some amount of education it their past and it mean he has already received
general understanding of the structure of native language. Thus, this more or less categorized
base usually serves as a template for foreign grammar or vocabulary. Person only has to place
new material on certain shelves in his memory and operate them like it their own language.
Children, in contrast, are usually confused by any grammar, even of their country. Bringing
foreign language to curriculum adds embarrassment because they do not have sufficient
understanding of grammatical of semantic categories and can not bring to order such huge
amounts of information.
Grown-ups also appear to be more enthusiastic about language studies. As a matter of fact, this
skill for them is a tool that can be used to achieve career goals. Obviously, more motivated
individual do better, and even if his abilities are modest, through practice success can come very
fast and lot of success stories can prove it. Kids, though, usually consider second language
lessons as a fun or, otherwise, something boring and, even if they tend to absorb knowledge like
sponges, without use it rapidly disappears. With no proper encouragement youngsters just do not
know they have to practice new words and grammar in order not to forget them.
Thus, while it would not be mistake to suggest children are naturally better learners, let us not
forget that adults are usually better suited to language studies.

Some people think high school graduates should travel or work for a period of
time instead of going directly to study at university.
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or
experience.
You should write at least 250 words.

There is a considerable controversy about what young people should do after receiving
graduation certificate of high school. The majority holds the viewpoint that obtaining an
university degree immediately after school is the only option to become successful and
established person. Others, however, tend to disagree; in their opinion after finishing school
individual should receive an opportunity to see the world or try his skills on job.
On the one hand, basic knowledge, came into posession of a pupil at school should be preserved
and receive futher development at university. Human brain forgets facts rapidly, espessially
those, which are not in use. In the case of making a long pause between graduation from school
and enrolling to an university, person may become unable to pass admission exams.
On the other hand, on job training may provide an opportunity of receiving experience and
choosing career before deciding the sphere, in which student wants to obtain higher education.
For instance, young person can try his skills of management, working as an assistant manager in
a small shop. In addition, that could also help him to understand if this work is really what he
desires and prevent from making an expensive mistake of choosing wrong major.
Another option of understanding someone’s needs is travelling. This is a perfect way to see the
world and different professions in use. Person, who have never been in rural areas could be
charmed, for example, by romantism of cheesemaking and come to decision to make genuine
milk products all his life.
To sum up, there are some ways different from the standart scheme of going to university right
after school and they should not be overlooked. Personally I think that whichever option person
chooses, time before university should not be wasted on entertainment or parties. It is essential to
use it wisely, thinking about the future.

Nowadays we are producing more and more rubbish.

Why do you think this is happening?

What can governments do to help reduce the amount of rubbish produced?

In our highly industrialized era there is a growing awareness about the exessive amounts of trash
people producing. We are about to be flooded by different types of garbage if certain measures
will not be taken. This essay will explore some causes of this and propose ways to solve the
problem.

To begin with, different food producers decided that their products will be selling better if they
will pack them in small-sized boxes and packets. These colorful and attractive packs go straight
to the trashcan, the number of packs is growing along with the consuming groth.

More consuming produces more waste. Government and businesses encourage consuming
because it leads to high profits and development of state economy. They are not interested in the
situation there a person is going to use something for a long time. Society is being bombarded
with commersials, pleading to buy, for instance, a new mobile phone. Buying new things cause
throwing away old but good things.

The problem of garbage is very complicated. As we can see, government is not interested of
reducing consuming. Thus, the responsibility has to be taken by individuals and non-
governmental organizations. Certain laws, regulating the percentage of packaging material per
ton of product should be established. Moreover, interesting programs, involving people to
participate can be developed. For example, bonuses for not asking for a plastic bag in
supermarkets or for buying extra large packs of food.

In addition, everyone should become conserned about the future of human beings and our planet.
If we do not wish to be buried in rubbish, we should think twice before buying things we do not
need.

This essay has been checked and graded by the real IELTS teacher. See bellow the teacher's
comments:
This is a good essay. It has the right structure and the contents cover the task. The paragraphs
are correctly built and logically connected. The language is fine, however the grammar needs
more attention. Overall, looks like a band 7 essay.

The age of Information Technology has taken a lot of people by surprise. While it has
become a way of life for some, others know very little about it and may be unlikely to learn.
Eventually we will have a polarised society and this will lead to serious social problems.
To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Our highly informatized era became quite a shock for many of us. At the time one part of society
uses new means of information very actively, other people stay in the dark without any chance to
make an approach to understanding new technologies. There is a raising awareness of does this
problem have a potential danger of slicing the society into two parts which would never
understand each other.
It is the fact that many of everyday activities became available for computer users only. For
example, if you are a university student, you are supposed to submit your term paper as typed
and printed document, they no longer accept hand-written papers. Furthermore, some
manufacturers do not distribute information leaflets, but give a website address on their products’
packs, thus only the Internet users can have an access for product details. The last but not the
least, the computer skills became a crucial requirement for employment in urban areas.
Meanwhile, inhabitants of rural areas do not need new means of acquiring information. Their
work and everyday activities do not demand using computers. For example, a farmer can use
radio to hear news and ordinary mail to communicate.
Taking into account the fact not every citizen can use new information technologies,
governments would not change the traditional ways of interaction with their people. It is highly
unlikely people would no longer have a possibility to vote by filling papers by hand or do other
activities, important for their citizenship.
Informatization of society affected those, who have a need of instant information exchange.
People, whose lifestyle do not require any haste in communication have an opportunity to use
traditional ways of it. I am assured that as long as situation does not make others to change their
way of life against their will, there is no risk of receiving serious social problems.

This essay has been checked and graded by the real IELTS teacher. See bellow the teacher's
comments:
This is a good essay. The only improvement it needs is length reduction (from 304 words to
250-265 words) and perhaps paying more attention to grammar. Overall, looks like a Band 7
essay.

Animals should not be used for the benefit of human beings, unless there is evidence that the
animals do not suffer in any way.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

There is a lot of controversy about using animals for human needs. Animal rights activists are
trying to stop all modern and traditional activities, which involve killing animals or cause their
suffering. Traditionalists are trying to convince the community that using living creatures for
men's needs is natural and cannot be avoided in everyday life. In this essay we will explore this
subject.
Activists, who defend animal rights, are telling the world that people should not use animals in
any way. Moreover, they say that animals should have exactly same rights as humans do. The
reason is that people and animals are both living creatures and there shouldn't be any difference
in treating them. So called extreme vegans are refusing to eat any food of animal origin, even
milk or honey. They are trying to convince people to do the same using as an argument that
killing animals and keeping them in captivity cause their suffering and not civilized.
Traditionalists disagree with the statement that human should stop killing animals or using them
to fulfill their needs. From the very beginning of human civilization there is a tradition and vital
need to use animals as a food and their parts in traditional crafts. Without proteins and vitamins
of animal origin human body wouldn't receive all nutrients it needs. Moreover, testing some
medicals on animals already helped to fight many diseases people suffered from.
I think, people have the moral right to use animals to their benefit, to some extent. I am sure, we
should not cause them suffer and die for our fun. Although, using animals for food is natural for
humans as a predators, but as civilized predators we should make sure to use only humane ways
of killing.

Governments around the world are spending billions in support of space programs. This
money would be better spent on research into improvements in human health.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

There is an opinion that countries are spending a lot of their cash assets on space projects while
they should rather finance medical science sufficiently. Spaceships are flying all over the
Universe at the time people are dying from AIDS or even flu. Is there any point of throwing
money into the outer space?

On the one hand, human really have not fought many dangerous and highly contagious diseases.
Moreover, industrialization and economical progress brought new diseases as a result of
receiving more comfortable life. They are diabetes, cardio-vascular problems, etc. In addition,
launching just one space shuttle into the sky requires so
many natural resources and brings so many pollution, that it influences ecology a lot. That brings
us new health issues, that need additional funding, which could be withdrawn from excessive
payments for space research.
On the other hand, scientists already have fundraising from commercial pharmaceutical
companies. A lot of diseases have been fought in just last 100 years and there is an increase in
mankind life expectancy. Moreover, improved health and elongated life of population leads to a
new problem – overpopulation. Space research can help to find a new home for Earth
inhabitants. The last, but not the least, who knows, there is a chance we could found on other
planets a panacea for all diseases.

As for me, I am not a very healthy person and my parents either. However, if there is a one, very
small chance, that something exciting will happen and astronauts will meet alien civilization on
other planets, I would not be happy that government is spending money for medicine only. We
have overcrowded planet and we should search for ways of expanding our habitat.

This essay has been checked and graded by the real IELTS teacher. See bellow the teacher's
comments:
This is a good essay. It has the right structure, covers the task, the contents is coherent, the
sentences are well-structured, the vocabulary and the grammar are fine. Overall, looks like
Band 7 essay.

Children today are too dependent on computers and electronic entertainment. It would be
better for them to be outside playing sports and taking part in more traditional pastimes than
spending all day indoors.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Together with computerization of our society there is a rising of public awareness about kids,
who spend too much time in front of personal computer or playing video games. What it best for
children to devote their free time to outdoor activities and conventional games or to be at home
and entertain themselves with computer?
Some types of PC games can be very intelligent and may contain huge educational potential.
They can encourage youngsters to develop researching skills and inspire them to learn new
things. However, significant amount of video games is dumb-type, which develops nothing but
button-pushing skill. Unfortunately, these games are usually highly addictive. Thus, they can
cause the lack of physical activity and even serious mental diseases.
Outdoor games often more beneficial for kids’ health. They not only train them in terms if agility
and endurance, but teach children to socialize and make friends. Moreover, they make them
stronger because of fresh air, physical activity and exposure to the sunlight. Therefore, being on
the street not always safe. Unattended child can receive trauma or become a subject of crime.
I was not very outgoing and physically active kid and preferred rather to read than to play with
others. Getting a computer brought more diversity for my leisure and study. It helped me to
experience new emotions, learn new things, study English and meet interesting people online.
High information technologies aptitude helped me to get a good job than I grew up. Therefore I
think parents should look to their child’s personality in order to decide what is more appropriate.
Finding good balance between electronic entertainment and outdoor games depends on parents’
ability to identify what benefits their child best.