IELTS #8: Starting age for education In many countries, children begin studying at school at the age of 6 or 7. Some people believe that children should begin studying at school earlier than this age. What are the advantages of children beginning their studies at a young age? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There has been intense discussions as to the starting age for education. Some people argue that schooling should begin earlier than 6 or 7 years old. There are advantage and disadvantage to this proposal. For people who support the proposal, it is believed that early education can bring children many benefits. Indeed, education has become a priority for many parents who seek to secure a good job for their children in this rapid society. They claim that children can be highly educated as they start education earlier than others. However, there are downsides of starting education earlier as well. First, children will be occupied with studies for most of their childhood and do not have sufficient time to play with friends or participate in activities outside school. Some research indicated that children develop their personality through social interaction. If children do not learn social skills, they can be immature when they grow up. Second, children who started cramming education before the age of 6 are likely to have mental problems. Compared with the past, competition has become increasingly fierce. Recent statistic data shows that there is a tendency among these children to drop out school before high school due to severe stress and pressure. In conclusion, I do not agree that children need to go to school at a young age. Instead, teachers and parents need to identify the talents of each child and nurture them for their personal and academic achievement.

IELTS #7: Retirement age In some countries, the average worker is obliged to retired at the age of 20, while in other countries people can work until they are 65 or 70. Meanwhile, we see some politicians enjoying power well into their eighties. Clearly there is little agreement on an appropriate retirement age. Until what age do you think people should be encouraged to remain in paid employment? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There has been passionate debate in the world today whether or not mandatory retirement age should be raised. In developing countries, many workers retire at 50 years old, whereas people in industrial nations continue working until they reach 65 or 70. Life expectancy is one of the factors to determine the age at which pensions are payable. For instance, the life expectancy of Japanese has increased year after year. Since the government changed the pension eligible age, people can now receive pensions from the age of 65. Those aged 60 to 65, who have reached the official retirement age but are not eligible to receive pensions, have to find a new job to survive for the blank 5 year period. The aging population could also contribute to a rise in the retirement age. Because of low birth rates, a shortage of workforce will be inevitable in industrial countries like Japan. Therefore, the government should encourage employers to hire skilled staff even if they have reached a certain age. On the other hand, there are some disadvantages of increasing the retirement age as well. In unprivileged countries, their life expectancy is usually lower due to the poor health systems. If the retirement age is set at 65 or 70, many workers will be forced to work their whole lives. In addition, if a large number of the elderly is employed, the younger generation, which makes up one third of the population, will not be given job opportunities. In conclusion, the official retirement age varies from country to country depending on factors such as economics and social values. I believe that people should be able to work as long as they wish.

IELTS #6: Education as he single most important factor in the development of a country Education is the single most important factor in the development of a country. Do you agree? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Education is one of the significant elements to help a country develop in a positive way. I agree with the statement for the following reasons. First of all, education is vital to every child's personal development and should not be denied by any reason. All children have the right to go to school and learn how to read and write their mother tongue. Recent studies have shown that acquisition is essential for communication and can also form their cultural identity. In addition, many jobs do not only require basic education and computer skills, but also academic knowledge. If students are highly educated, they will have more opportunities after graduation. In this way, they can be an important source of the future leaders for development. Education, with the new technology, can also equalize the economic gap between rich and poor. The severe famine in Somalia caused many deaths, however, not many people were aware of the news, as it was not broadcast as a top story on TV and relegated to the middle pages of most major news papers. Through the Internet, many students raised the issue by writing a blog or putting messages on social networking services, such as Facebook, because they learned in school that this critical situation was not only a result of their unfortunate climate, but also the economic inequality. The young generation can corporate with youth in other countries to tackle global issues by creating content on the Internet. In conclusion, it is important to provide all children with good education. Knowledge they gain will never run out and can be used efficiently for a country's development in various ways.

IELTS #5: Living standards in cities and rural areas iving standards in cities are much higher than those in rural areas. Why do you think this is so? What do you propose to improve the living standards of people in rural areas? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It has been claimed in the world today that the quality of life in rural areas is not as good as the one in urban areas. However, I do not completely agree with the statement. It is true that more people nowadays prefer to live in cities than in the countryside. A recent report also suggested that the reason of moving from their hometown was to seek for better lifestyles. However, like each culture has its own culture, each region has its unique local culture as well. Therefore, it does not seem justifiable to rank the living standards in different places by comparing statistical data. Nevertheless, there are several things we can make improvements to life in the countryside. Firstly, the government should establish more hospitals and medical facilities so that people in the rural areas do not have to drive down to town. Secondly, various educational institutions should be available for local residents. Many students are forced to leave home to pursue further education. Some of them may remain in their hometown if there are universities and colleges they can easily commute to and from school. Finally, we need to create more job opportunities. Most of the graduates continue to live in cities because the employment rate in their cities is higher. In fact, it has been reported that many small businesses are losing money because of a gradual decrease in the population. To conclude, there are advantages and disadvantages in both rural and urban areas. In my view, it is important to bridge the economic gap between them rather than clarifying the differences.

IELTS #4: Women in the military and police forces Some people think that the role of women in the military or police forces is very relevant and becoming more significant. Others argue the opposite. Do you agree or disagree? What is your opinion? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More women have been involved in the military or police forces since the beginning of the century. As increasing numbers of countries begin to expand the role of women over the last decade, there has been controversial debate among the public whether it is necessary for women to serve in combat conditions. First of all, genetically women are not as physically strong as men. The fact that women have a harder time moving quickly with a great deal of military equipment on their back, which often weigh between 50 and 100 pounds. For this reason, they may not be able to maintain pace over a long period of time with male soldiers, regardless of how fit they are. Recent studies also identified that females are not able to adept at handling the increased g-forces in aviation due to their less dense skeletal system. In addition, there is a concern that women at the frontline are more likely to be at risk of being captured and tortured, and possibly sexually assaulted because of their physical sizes. Nevertheless, there are advantages to having women in the military and police forces. Some critics claim that they can be used in prominent roles in a variety of major military campaigns. Historically speaking, it has been said that women in Stalingrad battles provided a significant source of combat power for the Soviet Union. In recent years, women soldiers have been reported to have given mental and physical assistance to those in need. According to an article published in the UN report, many female casualties in war appreciated all the help women soldiers gave them. In conclusion, despite the disadvantages, it can be beneficial to have female soldiers and police officers if they are given less dangerous duties. In this way, both men and women would equally share the responsibility for protecting the country.

IELTS #3: Taking care of the elderly In Japan, when people get old, they often go and live in a home with other old people where there are nurses to look after them. Sometimes, the government has to pay for the cost. Who should be responsible for old people? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nowadays, the aging population is increasingly problematic in many developed countries. There has been considerable debate whether the government should be responsible for providing all old people with funds for social and medical services. Some critics claim that the government should take more responsibility for the elderly and introduce more effective measures. Many old people in Japan are sent to nursing home where they will be looked after by professional nurses. Those who support the system say that it is not practicable for their children to do everything while being busy working every day. Supporters also believe that the government should not push the younger generation to take care of their own parents, but lessen the burden because we all live in the same society and need to help each other. If the old people are in poor health and do not have sufficient amounts of money to live after retirement, then the governments should provide social services for them. Others oppose that it should not be totally the government's duty. They argue that it is not viable to look after all old people in nursing homes due to the financial difficulties. Indeed, it is more practically if each family pays a certain amount of the cost with the government's support. If the elderly are looked after at home with their children, they will be happier than with professional nurses. Some research has also shown that younger pople who live with their grandparents tend to benefit from the experience and wisdom. In my opinion, neither side is right or wrong because each family has a different situation. More importantly, we need to look at how to take care of our old people rather than blaming who should take responsibility on each other. It is also important to raise awareness of the aging problems and we all should tackle them to improve our society.

IELTS Writing: #2 School subjects It is often said that the subjects taught in school are too academic in orientation and that it would be more useful for children to learn about practical matters such as home management, work and interpersonal skills. To what extent, do you agree or disagree? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There has been debate whether children should not only learn academic subjects, but also practical skills in school. Critics say that children need to prepare for the real-life tasks they will face after graduation. However, I disagree with the statement for the following reasons. First of all, it is not the only duty of teachers, but also parents to prepare their children to tackle practical affairs of life. Their home would be the ideal place to learn about home management and interpersonal skills. As for work, children can develop abilities through part-time jobs under the supervision of managers or experienced staff members. Secondly, practical subjects such as home economics are incorporated in school curriculum. Compared with academic subjects, it is already sufficient to teach these non-academic subjects taught one or two classes per week. Teachers play a significant role in children's education and they should equip students with the knowledge and confidence to achieve academically. Finally, there is concern among parents and teachers that the academic levels of students nowadays is decreasing. Recent research has shown that children are more relaxed to study than ever before, since the light education policy was introduced a decade ago. There is a result of cutting back the hours of academic subjects. In conclusion, it would be beneficial for children to learn how to deal with problems in real life. Nevertheless, I believe it should not necessarily be taught in school because it is a place where children should be educated, not trained.

IELTS Writing: #1 Gap year after high school 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 disadvantage of both approaches. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- High school students may face to make many decisions as they prepare to graduate including what they are going to study after graduation. Some high school students prefer to travel or work for some time before pursuing further education, while others do not take a gap year and directly enter a college or university. There are pros and cons to both approaches. The majority of young students and their parents believe that it is better to continue studying after graduation. One of the reasons is that students will be able to start their career at the earliest. For example, if a student wishes to be a medical doctor, she or he will have to take a course which normally takes 6 years excluding training time. However, many of them will have to be on a full student loan because they have no saving for tuition fees. On the other hand, some parents believe that young people should work to gain practical skills or travel to broaden their mind before tertiary education. Students who have work experience in an office environment find clerical duties boring and decide to become a teacher. In fact, a survey taken in various universities has shown evidence that many fist year students are uncertain about their academic interests and they often change their major subjects. The only downside is that it will be difficult to commit to studying after a break. In conclusion, young people should make their own decision whether they continue studying or challenge other things before university. Either way, it will be beneficial for them in their future.