WRITING 8 – DISCUSSION ESSAY [2]
Recording: W8.mp4
Lean towards one view Middle-ground opinion
Body 1 (neutral) - Explain why some people Body 1 (neutral) - Explain why some people
think that way propose VIEW 1
On the one hand, it is understandable why
some people propose/ believe … They Body 2 (neutral) - Explain why some people
believe/say, … Advocates of … might also add propose VIEW 2
that ….
From this perspective, …. Body 3 (Your opinion)
The argument goes that …
● Upon weighing both views, I would
propose …
Body 2 - Explain why you side with those who ● In light of the aforementioned
say …. considerations, I would argue …
Notwithstanding the aforementioned
arguments, I side with those who say that …
Exam question 1
Some people think that zoos are all cruel and should be closed down. Others
however believe that zoos can be useful in protecting wild animals.
Discuss both opinions and give your own opinion.
Body 3 - A selective approach to closing zoos
- zoos that fail to meet ethical standards and exploit animals should be shut
down
+ released into the wild if possible
+ transferred to better facilities in the case of rare or endangered
species.
- zoos that adhere to high standards of animal welfare and engage in
conservation work should be retained
There are those who believe all zoos should be closed down, as they cruelly
mistreat animals. However, others are of the opinion that these establishments
can actually be helpful in preserving endangered species. This essay will first
examine both views before showing my final thoughts.
On the one hand, there are compelling reasons for supporting the closure
of zoos. Advocates emphasize that zoos are inherently cruel, as they confine
animals in unnatural environments, causing physical and psychological distress.
In most cases, animals in zoos live in enclosures that are far smaller compared to
their natural habitats, which can lead to behavioral problems such as pacing, self-
harm, and aggression. Opponents of zoos might also voice concerns over the
over-exploitation of wild animals for entertainment in many zoo establishments.
3: such as / like A, B, C
On the other side/ end of the spectrum, proponents of zoos highlight their
role in conserving wild animals, particularly vulnerable species. They emphasize
that not all zoos are cruel; some actually serve as conservation hubs, participating
in breeding programs aimed at increasing the populations of endangered/
threatened species and eventually reintroducing them into the wild. For example,
the San Diego Zoo in the US has played a critical role in the recovery of the
California condor, which was once on the verge/ brink of extinction. This example
is a testament to how zoos can function as important centers for wildlife
preservation, contributing to the survival and recovery of endangered species.
Upon weighing both views, I would propose a selective approach, with
zoos that fail to meet ethical standards and excessively exploit animals being shut
down. Animals in these establishments should be released into the wild if possible
or transferred to better facilities, particularly in the case of rare or endangered
species. In contrast, zoos that adhere to high standards of animal welfare and
engage in meaningful conservation work can play a positive role in protecting
wildlife. These institutions should be supported and encouraged to continue their
efforts in preserving biodiversity and raising awareness about the plight of
threatened animals.
The Dark Side of Zoos: Why It’s Time to Let Them Go
Audio 1: The Dark Side of Zoos.mp3
Transcript:
For decades, zoos have been marketed as havens of education and conservation,
inviting millions to marvel at exotic animals in settings designed to mimic their
natural habitats. But beneath the surface lies an uncomfortable truth: zoos are
inherently cruel. No amount of carefully crafted enclosures or glossy marketing
can disguise the fact that animals in zoos live lives far removed from the freedom
they were meant to have.
The very concept of a zoo strips animals of their autonomy. Lions, meant to roam
vast savannahs, are confined to small spaces where pacing and other signs of
stress are common. Elephants, known for their complex social structures and
need for wide-ranging habitats, are often left isolated or forced into unnatural
herds. A study published in Nature Communications found that captive elephants
in zoos live significantly shorter lives than their wild counterparts, with obesity
and stress-related illnesses being key contributors. These are not isolated
incidents—they are symptoms of a system that prioritizes human entertainment
over animal welfare.
Proponents argue that zoos play a vital role in conservation, but this claim often
rings hollow. According to the Born Free Foundation, only 3% of species kept in
zoos are part of any active reintroduction program. Most animals live out their
days as exhibits, disconnected from meaningful conservation efforts.
In an age where technology allows us to experience wildlife through
documentaries, virtual reality, and expansive nature reserves, the justification for
zoos becomes increasingly tenuous. Sanctuaries and protected parks offer
alternatives that respect animals’ needs while still fostering human connection to
the natural world.
The reality is clear: no enclosure, no matter how advanced, can replicate the
vastness and complexity of the wild. It’s time to phase out zoos and embrace
more ethical ways to celebrate and protect wildlife.
Audio 2: Zoos Guardians of Conservation and Hope for Endangered Species.mp3
Zoos often find themselves at the center of heated debates, but one fact is
undeniable: they play a crucial role in conservation efforts that have saved
countless species from the brink of extinction. Far from being relics of the past,
modern zoos are evolving into hubs of education, research, and preservation—
providing lifelines for animals that might otherwise disappear forever.
Take the San Diego Zoo, for example. Once, the California condor was a near-
forgotten casualty of habitat loss and environmental neglect. By the 1980s, fewer
than 30 remained in the wild. But thanks to an ambitious breeding program
spearheaded by the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, the condor population has
soared to over 500 today, with many reintroduced into their natural habitats. It’s
a stunning example of how zoos bridge the gap between extinction and survival.
Zoos also raise public awareness about biodiversity in ways that documentaries or
virtual tours can’t fully replicate. Standing a few feet away from a tiger or
witnessing the graceful flight of a condor sparks a connection that fuels curiosity
and conservation-minded action. Research shows that zoos inspire visitors to
support wildlife protection, creating ripple effects far beyond the exhibits.
Moreover, zoos serve as genetic reservoirs for endangered species. Breeding
programs for animals like the giant panda or the black-footed ferret have been
game-changers in rebuilding populations decimated by human activities. Without
these efforts, entire species could have been lost.
Closing zoos would not only cut off critical conservation programs but also sever a
tangible link between humans and wildlife. In a world facing unprecedented
biodiversity loss, zoos remain vital allies in preserving our planet’s natural
wonders. If anything, their mission is more important now than ever.
Exam question 2
Some people prefer to spend their lives doing the same things and avoiding
change. Others, however, think that change is always a good thing.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Outline - 10’ - 6:58
People’s attitudes towards change are different, with some individuals
opting for a stable, predictable life, while others embrace change as invariably
positive. This essay will closely examine both views before showing my final
thoughts.
On the one hand, advocates of a life devoid of change often cite the
comfort and security that it confers upon them. Doing the same job every day, for
example, can help people reduce stress and anxiety, allowing them to focus on
their established work habits and goals. However, this aversion to change may
hinder personal growth and cause individuals to miss out on valuable
opportunities. Worse still, a rigid adherence to routine can make it difficult for a
person to adapt to unexpected life events or new circumstances, which can be
problematic in today's rapidly evolving world.
On the other hand, those who say that change is always beneficial often
emphasize that it fosters personal development and cultivates adaptability. By
embracing new experiences in a new line of work, for instance, individuals can
learn not only new work-related knowledge but also the necessary skills to
acclimatize/ adapt to a new work environment. Nonetheless, this perspective
overlooks the fact that constant change can give rise to instability. Also, the
pursuit of change for its own sake may result in a superficial engagement with
experiences, preventing individuals from fully benefiting from and appreciating
each situation.
In light of the aforementioned considerations, I am convinced that changes
should be welcomed but with a measured approach that takes into account the
potential risks and benefits. By carefully evaluating the implications of each
change, individuals can make informed decisions and strike a balance between
stability and personal growth. This risk management mindset allows for a more
thoughtful engagement with change, ensuring that its potential advantages are
maximized while minimizing its drawbacks.
Word count: 320 - Written by Thanh Nguyen
[VER ko co pbien]
On the one hand, some prefer stability because it provides a sense of
security and predictability. Routine can make life feel more manageable and less
stressful, as individuals know what to expect each day. For instance, someone
with a stable job and consistent daily schedule might feel more comfortable and
confident, reducing anxiety and uncertainty. Additionally, maintaining the same
routines allows for the development of expertise and efficiency in specific tasks,
which can lead to a higher level of performance and satisfaction in one's personal
and professional life.
On the other hand, proponents of change argue that it is essential for
growth and innovation. Embracing change can lead to new opportunities and
experiences that enrich life and foster personal development. For example,
changing careers or moving to a new city can introduce individuals to new
perspectives, skills, and social networks, enhancing their overall quality of life.
Furthermore, change can prevent stagnation and boredom, keeping life
interesting and dynamic. This adaptability is also crucial in today's fast-paced
world, where those who can embrace change often thrive in the face of new
challenges and advances.
Exam question 3
Some people think that it is a waste of money for countries to host big sporting events like
the World Cup. However, others think that hosting large sporting events has a positive
impact on a country.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
to be awash in high debt
Whether hosting major sporting events like the World Cup is a judicious
investment has been a topic of debate for years. This essay will closely examine
both sides of the argument, before showing my final thoughts.
On the one hand, proponents of staging international sports events often
emphasize that they are a catalyst for economic growth. Infrastructure
development, such as building stadiums and improving transportation, not only
creates jobs but also improves long-term urban planning. Tourism also gets a
significant boost, with fans from around the world flocking to the host country,
thereby increasing spending in hotels, restaurants, and other local businesses.
Moreover, hosting such events often elevates a country's global standing and can
instill a sense of national pride among its citizens.
However, there are valid concerns about the economic implications of
hosting such grandiose events. Critics argue that constructing stadiums and
upgrading infrastructure demands enormous investment. In many cases, these
facilities become underused 'white elephants' after the event. Additionally, the
promised economic windfall does not always materialize. For example, Brazil
spent approximately $15 billion on the 2014 World Cup, yet the expected
economic boom was short-lived, leaving the country with hefty debts and
underutilized stadiums.
Upon weighing both views, / In light of the aforementioned considerations,
I believe the decision to host these events depends largely on the economic
health of the country. If the national budget is already stretched thin/
overstretched, organizing a mega sporting event might exacerbate financial
strain and lead to long-term economic burdens, as seen in Brazil's case post-
World Cup. However, for countries with robust financial reserves and sound
economic planning, the investment can be justified. These nations are better
positioned to absorb/ handle the initial colossal costs and can leverage the event
for longer-term benefits.
Some people believe that hosting major sporting events like the World Cup
benefits a nation, whereas others argue that it is a waste of money. I agree with
the latter view.
On the one hand, proponents of staging/ organizing large sporting events
often emphasize its potential socioeconomic benefits. When a country hosts an
event like the Olympics, it attracts millions of visitors, which boosts local
businesses such as hotels, restaurants, and shops. This influx of tourists can
provide a temporary economic boost and create job opportunities, especially in
the service sector. Supporters of hosting such grandiose events might also add
that it puts the country on the global stage, potentially attracting future
investments and tourism. The pride and excitement generated from hosting such
events can also foster national unity and improve the country’s international
image.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned arguments, I side with those who
view staging international sporting events as a waste of money. The costs
associated with / attached to organizing such world-scale events are enormous,
including the construction of state-of-the-art sports facilities, infrastructure
upgrades, and security measures. These expenses can strain / put a strain on a
country’s coffers, particularly in developing countries where funds could be better
spent on essential services such as healthcare and education. For example, after
the World Cup 2014, Brazil faced widespread criticism for spending billions of
dollars on stadiums that later became underutilized/ fell into disuse, while many
of its citizens continued to live in poverty.
In conclusion, while there are justifications for supporting hosting large
sporting events, I would argue that the investment in it is largely unjustified/
wasteful.
In conclusion, while hosting major sporting events can offer some benefits,
such as short-term economic gains and improved international image of a
country, I would argue that the significant financial costs make it a questionable
investment, especially for countries with limited resources and pressing social
needs.
Exam question 4 - Due 18/12/2024
In some countries, a few people earn extremely high salaries. Some people
think that this is good for a country, while others believe the government
should limit the amount people can earn.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Audio: W6 Salary caps.mp3
When we talk about whether the government should put a cap on how much
money a person can earn, it’s like stepping into a tug-of-war between two strong
beliefs. On one side, some people think it's fair to limit earnings to make society
more equal. On the other, there are those who believe that letting some folks earn a
mountain of money is actually good for the country.
Let’s start with the idea of putting a ceiling on income. Imagine if there were rules
saying that no one could earn more than a certain amount, it could make society
seem more balanced. If everyone earned within the same ballpark, it could mean
fewer people are struggling to make ends meet, and there would be less of a gap
between the rich and the poor. This could help to create a feeling that we’re all in
the same boat. But it’s not as simple as that. When you put a limit on earnings, you
might be pulling the brakes on people’s drive to innovate and excel. If someone
knows they won’t get extra dough for putting in more effort, they might just do the
bare minimum. This could lead to a situation where the country’s overall
productivity takes a hit, like a car running out of gas.
On the flip side, letting some individuals earn huge sums of money can be seen as
giving them the carrot they need to keep chasing their goals. People who can earn
more might take bigger risks and push harder, which can lead to new businesses,
inventions, or services that can make life better for everyone. These high-earners
also often pay a lot of taxes, which can fill the government’s piggy bank and help
pay for public services, like schools and hospitals. Plus, their spending can be like
rain on dry soil for the economy, helping other businesses to grow and creating
jobs.
But allowing unlimited earnings can also have downsides. It can lead to a society
where the divide between the rich and the poor is as wide as an ocean. This can
cause hard feelings and make people think the system is rigged. If only a few
people have most of the wealth, it can also lead to them having too much power
over things like politics and the media, which isn’t good for democracy.
So, is there a golden ticket solution? It’s tough to say. If the state decides to
regulate earnings too much, it could stifle the very spirit that drives progress. But if
it lets the scales tip too far the other way, it risks creating an uneven playing field
where only a few can score the highest points. Perhaps the best approach is
somewhere in the middle, like a seesaw that’s balanced just right. Some suggest
that rather than capping earnings, the government could ensure that those who earn
more, pay more in taxes, which can then be used to lift others up. This way, the
ladder to success isn’t pulled up after the few who’ve climbed it, but is left down
for others to rise as well.
In the end, it’s about finding the sweet spot where people are rewarded enough to
keep them hungry for success, but where the pie is shared enough to keep everyone
fed. Finding that balance is one of the trickiest puzzles a country has to solve.
