Band 9 sample IELTS writing on compete or coorporative.

Competition and cooperation play a large role in the advancement of society, both in business and non-business areas. Competition forces people to improve their products or services, and hence benefits the recipients of these products or services. Cooperation, however, plays an even more important role in development of individuals and the society as a whole, because it drastically increases the scale of these improvements. Working in groups and teams far increases the productivity of individuals. Thus, I firmly believe children should be taught to cooperate rather than to compete.

First of all, cooperation is an important skill in the future life of all children. They will need to live with other people throughout their life, since they will not study alone, work alone, nor spend their leisure time alone. If they do not know how to cooperate with their classmates, their colleagues, and other family members, then they will lose the chance to live happily. Thus, cooperation skills should be taught before they grow up to face serious problems living with others.

Furthermore, cooperation is a significant contributing factor to the development of society. While competition generally ends in a win-lose result, cooperation advocates that one plus one is larger than two, three or even a larger number. For example, the competition of two business firms would ultimately lead to the result that one becomes stronger and the other fails and goes out of business. However, if they cooperate with each other successfully, they may group together to form an enterprise larger than the mere sum of the two. The more successful cooperation there is, the better the society develops. Thus, cooperation should be taught to children, because eventually they will be the executives of important corporations.

Admittedly, competition also plays a significant role in many areas. Stressed by the competition, individuals and organizations have to struggle to survive, and so they are forced to make improvements and develop.

However, in comparison, cooperation is more effective in helping individuals and societies to develop, because it benefits not only individuals, but also society as a whole. The reality is that children should be taught both, but if forced to choose only one, parents should undoubtedly teach their kids to cooperate rather than to compete.

 

Should parents be obliged to immunise their children against common childhood diseases? Or do individuals have the right to choose not to immunise their children?

The issue of whether we should force parents to immunise their children against common diseases is, in my opinion, a social rather than a medical question. Since we are free to choose what we expose our bodies to in the way of food, drink, or religion for that matter, why should the question of medical “treatment” be any different?

Medical researchers and governments are primarily interested in overall statistics and trends and in money-saving schemes which fail to take into consideration the individual's concerns and rights. While immunisation against diseases such astetanus and whooping cough may be effective, little information is released about the harmful effects of vaccinations which can sometimes result in stunted growth or even death.

The body is designed to resist disease and to create its own natural immunity through contact with that disease. So when children are given artificial immunity,we create a vulnerable society which is entirely dependent on immunisation. In the event that mass immunisation programmes were to cease, the society as a whole would be more at risk than ever before.

In addition there is the issue of the rights of the individual. As members of a society, why should we be obliged to subject our children to this potentially harmful practice? Some people may also be against immunisation on religious grounds and their needs must also be considered.

For these reasons I feel strongly that immunisation programmes should not be obligatory and that the individual should have the right to choose whether or not to participate.

 

Several languages are in danger of extinction because they are spoken by very small numbers of people. Some people say that governments should spend public money on saving these languages, while others believe that would be a waste of money. Discuss both these views and give your opinion.

It is true that some minority languages may disappear in the near future. Although it can be argued that governments could save money by allowing this to happen, I believe that these languages should be protected and preserved.

There are several reasons why saving minority languages could be seen as a waste of money. Firstly, if a language is only spoken by a small number of people, expensive education programs will be needed to make sure that more people learn it, and the state will have to pay for facilities, teachers and marketing. This money might be better spent on other public services. Secondly, it would be much cheaper and more efficient for countries to have just one language. Governments could cut all kinds of costs related to communicating with each minority group.

Despite the above arguments, I believe that governments should try to preserve languages that are less widely spoken. A language is much more than simply a means of communication; it has a vital connection with the cultural identity of the people who speak it. If a language disappears, a whole way of life will disappear with it, and we will lose the rich cultural diversity that makes societies more interesting. By spending money to protect minority languages, governments can also preserve traditions, customs and behaviours that are part of a country’s history.

In conclusion, it may save money in the short term if we allow minority languages to disappear, but in the long term this would have an extremely negative impact on our cultural heritage.

 

Band 9 sample IELTS writing on violence in movies and society. Topic: The government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to decrease violent crimes in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It has been suggested that the government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to decrease the rate of violent crimes in society. It would certainly be easy to garner support for such a move, but solely adapting such a policy will do little to effect social change.

The question has often been raised as to what extent media violence actually influences behavior. One can readily recount incidences of a child or young person viewing some violent behavior in a movie or on television and then trying to reproduce that situation in real life. It is hard to estimate the amount of violence which can be traced back to television shows or movies but the existence of such incidences is undeniable. Logically, removing this violent content should directly reduce the incidence of such violence but this relationship between violent media content and violent behavior is not so simple.

While much has been recorded of young people imitating media violence, little has been directed to the influence of sad violence on those who are able to differentiate the imaginary situations in movies and on television from reality. If one were to find no similar relationship it could be immediately surmised that the most direct solution is increased supervision of young people, and not themodification of media content. The degree to which people are influenced by what they see in the media depends directly on how responsibly they are educated about the relationship of fiction and reality.

Watching comedies does not transform one into a comedian, and watching violent movies does not directly make one violent. Rather than taking crude half measures to repair complex social problems, more focus must be placed on the nature of interpersonal relationships, social responsibility and personal accountability.