Microsoft Word simon task docx

particularly in large cities in the developed world. In my opinion, this trend 
could have both positive and negative consequences in equal measure. 
The rise in one-person households can be seen as positive for both 
personal and broader economic reasons. On an individual level, people 
who choose to live alone may become more independent and self-reliant 
than those who live with family members. A young adult who lives alone, 
for example, will need to learn to cook, clean, pay bills and manage his 
or her budget, all of which are valuable life skills; an increase in the 
number of such individuals can certainly be seen as a positive 
development. From an economic perspective, the trend towards living 
alone will result in greater demand for housing. This is likely to benefit the 
construction industry, estate agents and a whole host of other companies 
that rely on homeowners to buy their products or services. 
However, the personal and economic arguments given above can be 
considered from the opposite angle. Firstly, rather than the positive 
feeling of increased independence, people who live alone may 
experience feelings of loneliness, isolation and worry. They miss out on 
the emotional support and daily conversation that family or flatmates can 
provide, and they must bear the weight of all household bills and 
responsibilities; in this sense, perhaps the trend towards living alone is a 
negative one. Secondly, from the financial point of view, a rise in demand 
for housing is likely to push up property prices and rents. While this may 
benefit some businesses, the general population, including those who 
live alone, will be faced with rising living costs. 
In conclusion, the increase in one-person households will have both 
beneficial and detrimental effects on individuals and on the economy. 
(band 9) 

---

93
Some people think that all university students should study 
whatever they like. Others believe that they should only be allowed 
to study subjects that will be useful in the future, such as those 
related to science and technology.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
People have different views about how much choice students should 
have with regard to what they can study at university. While some argue 
that it would be better for students to be forced into certain key subject 
areas, I believe that everyone should be able to study the course of their 
choice. 
There are various reasons why people believe that universities should 
only offer subjects that will be useful in the future. They may assert that 
university courses like medicine, engineering and information technology 
are more likely to be beneficial than certain art degrees. From a personal 
perspective, it can be argued that these courses provide more job 
opportunities, career progression, better salaries, and therefore an 
improved quality of life for students who take them. On the societal level, 
by forcing people to choose particular university subjects, governments 
can ensure that any knowledge and skill gaps in the economy are 
covered. Finally, a focus on technology in higher education could lead to 
new inventions, economic growth, and greater future prosperity. 
In spite of these arguments, I believe that university students should be 
free to choose their preferred areas of study. In my opinion, society will 
benefit more if our students are passionate about what they are learning. 
Besides, nobody can really predict which areas of knowledge will be most 
useful to society in the future, and it may be that employers begin to value 
creative thinking skills above practical or technical skills. If this were the 
case, perhaps we would need more students of art, history and 
philosophy than of science or technology. 
In conclusion, although it might seem sensible for universities to focus 
only on the most useful subjects, I personally prefer the current system 
in which people have the right to study whatever they like. 
(297 words, band 9) 

---

94
Some people who have been in prison become good citizens later, 
and it is often argued that these are the best people to talk to 
teenagers about the dangers of committing a crime.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is true that ex-prisoners can become normal, productive members of 
society. I completely agree with the idea that allowing such people to 
speak to teenagers about their experiences is the best way to discourage 
them from breaking the law. 
In my opinion, teenagers are more likely to accept advice from someone 
who can speak from experience. Reformed offenders can tell young 
people about how they became involved in crime, the dangers of a 
criminal lifestyle, and what life in prison is really like. They can also dispel 
any ideas that teenagers may have about criminals leading glamorous 
lives. While adolescents are often indifferent to the guidance given by 
older people, I imagine that most of them would be extremely keen to 
hear the stories of an ex-offender. The vivid and perhaps shocking nature 
of these stories is likely to have a powerful impact. 
The alternatives to using reformed criminals to educate teenagers about 
crime would be much less effective. One option would be for police 
officers to visit schools and talk to young people. This could be useful in 
terms of informing teens about what happens to lawbreakers when they 
are caught, but young people are often reluctant to take advice from 
figures of authority. A second option would be for school teachers to 
speak to their students about crime, but I doubt that students would see 
teachers as credible sources of information about this topic. Finally, 
educational films might be informative, but there would be no opportunity 
for young people to interact and ask questions. 
In conclusion, I fully support the view that people who have turned their 
lives around after serving a prison sentence could help to deter teenagers 
from committing crimes. 
(287 words, band 9) 

---

95
In many countries, a small number of people earn extremely high 
salaries. Some people believe that this is good for the country, but 
others think that governments should not allow salaries above a 
certain level.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
People have different views about whether governments should 
introduce a maximum wage. While in some ways it may seem reasonable 
to allow people to earn as much as companies are willing to pay, I 
personally believe that employee remuneration should be capped at a 
certain level. 
There are various reasons why it might be considered beneficial to allow 
people to be paid extremely high salaries. If companies offer excellent 
pay packages, they can attract the most talented people in their fields to 
work for them. For example, technology companies like Google are able 
to employ the best programmers because of the huge sums that they are 
willing to pay. Furthermore, these well-paid employees are likely to be 
highly motivated to work hard and therefore drive their businesses 
successfully. In theory, this should result in a thriving economy and 
increased tax revenues, which means that paying high salaries benefits 
everyone. 
However, I agree with those who argue that there should be a maximum 
wage. By introducing a limit on earnings, the pay-gap between bosses 
and employees can be reduced. Currently, the difference between 
normal and top salaries is huge, and this can demotivate workers who 
feel that the situation is unfair. With lower executive salaries, it might 
become feasible to introduce higher minimum wages, and everybody 
would be better off. One possible consequence of greater equality could 
be that poverty and crime rates fall because the general population will 
experience an improved standard of living. 
In conclusion, it seems to me that it would be better, on balance, for 
governments to set a limit on the wages of the highest earners in society. 
(274 words, band 9) 

---

96
Some people think that instead of preventing climate change, we 
need to find a way to live with it. To what extent do you agree or 
disagree?
Climate change represents a major threat to life on Earth, but some 
people argue that we need to accept it rather than try to stop it. I 
completely disagree with this opinion, because I believe that we still have 
time to tackle this issue and reduce the human impact on the Earth's 
climate. 
There are various measures that governments and individuals could take 
to prevent, or at least mitigate, climate change. Governments could 
introduce laws to limit the carbon dioxide emissions that lead to global 
warming. They could impose “green taxes” on drivers, airline companies 
and other polluters, and they could invest in renewable energy production 
from solar, wind or water power. As individuals, we should also try to limit 
our contribution to climate change, by becoming more energy efficient, 
by flying less, and by using bicycles and public transport. Furthermore, 
the public can affect the actions of governments by voting for politicians 
who propose to tackle climate change, rather than for those who would 
prefer to ignore it. 
If instead of taking the above measures we simply try to live with climate 
change, I believe that the consequences will be disastrous. To give just 
one example, I am not optimistic that we would be able to cope with even 
a small rise in sea levels. Millions of people would be displaced by 
flooding, particularly in countries that do not have the means to safeguard 
low-lying areas. These people would lose their homes and their jobs, and 
they would be forced to migrate to nearby cities or perhaps to other 
countries. The potential for human suffering would be huge, and it is likely 
that we would see outbreaks of disease and famine, as well as increased 
homelessness and poverty. 
In conclusion, it is clear to me that we must address the problem of 
climate change, and I disagree with those who argue that we can find 
ways to live with it. 
(322 words, band 9) 

---

97
Many governments think that economic progress is their most 
important goal. Some people, however, think that other types of 
progress are equally important for a country. 
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
People have different views about how governments should measure 
their countries’ progress. While economic progress is of course essential, 
I agree with those who believe that other measures of progress are just 
as important. 
There are three key reasons why economic growth is seen as a 
fundamental goal for countries. Firstly, a healthy economy results in job 
creation, a high level of employment, and better salaries for all citizens. 
Secondly, economic progress ensures that more money is available for 
governments to spend on infrastructure and public services. For 
example, a government with higher revenues can invest in the country's 
transport network, its education system and its hospitals. Finally, a strong 
economy can help a country’s standing on the global stage, in terms of 
its political influence and trading power. 
However, I would argue that various other forms of progress are just as 
significant as the economic factors mentioned above. In particular, we 
should consider the area of social justice, human rights, equality and 
democracy itself. For example, the treatment of minority groups is often 
seen as a reflection of the moral standards and level of development of 
a society. Perhaps another key consideration when judging the progress 
of a modern country should be how well that country protects the natural 
environment, and whether it is moving towards environmental 
sustainability. Alternatively, the success of a nation could be measured 
by looking at the health, well-being and happiness of its residents. 
In conclusion, the economy is obviously a key marker of a country’s 
success, but social, environmental and health criteria are equally 
significant. 
(262 words, band 9) 

---

98
As well as making money, businesses also have social 
responsibilities. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Businesses have always sought to make a profit, but it is becoming 
increasingly common to hear people talk about the social obligations that 
companies have. I completely agree with the idea that businesses should 
do more for society than simply make money. 
On the one hand, I accept that businesses must make money in order to 
survive in a competitive world. It seems logical that the priority of any 
company should be to cover its running costs, such as employees’ wages 
and payments for buildings and utilities. On top of these costs, companies 
also need to invest in improvements and innovations if they wish to 
remain successful. If a company is unable to pay its bills or meet the 
changing needs of customers, any concerns about social responsibilities 
become irrelevant. In other words, a company can only make a positive 
contribution to society if it is in good financial health. 
On the other hand, companies should not be run with the sole aim of 
maximising profit; they have a wider role to play in society. One social 
obligation that owners and managers have is to treat their employees 
well, rather than exploiting them. For example, they could pay a “living 
wage” to ensure that workers have a good quality of life. I also like the 
idea that businesses could use a proportion of their profits to support local 
charities, environmental projects or education initiatives. Finally, instead 
of trying to minimise their tax payments by using accounting loopholes, I 
believe that company bosses should be happy to contribute to society 
through the tax system. 
In conclusion, I believe that companies should place as much importance 
on their social responsibilities as they do on their financial objectives. 
(285 words, band 9) 

---

99
Some universities now offer their courses on the Internet so that 
people can study online. Is this a positive or negative development?
It is true that online courses are becoming a common feature of university 
education. Although there are some drawbacks of Internet-based 
learning, I would argue that there are far more benefits. 
The main drawback of the trend towards online university courses is that 
there is less direct interaction. Students may not have the opportunity to 
engage face-to-face with their teachers, and will instead have to rely on 
written forms of communication. Similarly, students who study online do 
not come into direct contact with each other, and this could have a 
negative impact on peer support, discussion and exchange of ideas. For 
example, whereas students on traditional courses can attend seminars 
and even discuss their subjects over coffee after lessons, online learners 
are restricted to chatting through website forum areas. These learners 
may also lack the motivation and element of competition that face-to-face 
group work brings. 
Despite the negatives mentioned above, I believe that online university 
courses are a positive development for various reasons. Firstly, they 
allow learners to study in a flexible way, meaning that they can work 
whenever and wherever is convenient, and they can cover the material 
at their own pace. Secondly, the cost of a university education can be 
greatly reduced, while revenues for institutions may increase as more 
students can be taught. Finally, online learning offers open access to 
anybody who is willing to study, regardless of age, location, ability and 
background. For example, my uncle, who is 65 years old, has recently 
enrolled on an online MBA course in a different country, which would 
have been impossible in the days before Internet-based education. 
In conclusion, while I recognise the possible disadvantages of online 
learning, I consider it to be a positive development overall. 

---

100
It is inevitable that traditional cultures will be lost as technology 
develops. Technology and traditional cultures are incompatible. To 
what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?
Some people believe that technological developments lead to the loss of 
traditional cultures. I partly agree with this assertion; while it may be true 
in the case of some societies, others seem to be unaffected by 
technology and the modern world. 
On the one hand, the advances in technology that have driven 
industrialisation in developed countries have certainly contributed to the 
disappearance of traditional ways of life. For example, in pre-industrial 
Britain, generations of families grew up in the same small village 
communities. These communities had a strong sense of identity, due to 
their shared customs and beliefs. However, developments in transport, 
communications and manufacturing led to the dispersal of families and 
village communities as people moved to the cities in search of work. 
Nowadays most British villages are inhabited by commuters, many of 
whom do not know their closest neighbours. 
On the other hand, in some parts of the world traditional cultures still 
thrive. There are tribes in the Amazon Rainforest, for example, that have 
been completely untouched by the technological developments of the 
developed world. These tribal communities continue to hunt and gather 
food from the forest, and traditional skills are passed on to children by 
parents and elders. Other traditional cultures, such as farming 
communities in parts of Africa, are embracing communications 
technologies. Mobile phones give farmers access to information, from 
weather predictions to market prices, which helps them to prosper and 
therefore supports their culture. 
In conclusion, many traditional ways of life have been lost as a result of 
advances in technology, but other traditional communities have survived 
and even flourished. 
(266 words, band 9) 

---

101
Most people have forgotten the meaning behind traditional or 
religious festivals; during festival periods, people nowadays only 
want to enjoy themselves. To what extent do you agree or disagree 
with this opinion?
Some people argue that we no longer remember the original meaning of 
festivals, and that most of us treat them as opportunities to have fun. 
While I agree that enjoyment seems to be the priority during festival 
times, I do not agree that people have forgotten what these festivals 
mean. 
On the one hand, religious and traditional festivals have certainly become 
times for celebration. In the UK, Christmas is a good example of a festival 
period when people are most concerned with shopping, giving and 
receiving presents, decorating their homes and enjoying traditional meals 
with their families. Most people look forward to Christmas as a holiday 
period, rather than a time to practise religion. Similar behaviour can be 
seen during non-religious festivals, such as Bonfire Night. People 
associate this occasion with making fires, watching firework displays, and 
perhaps going to large events in local parks; in other words, enjoyment 
is people’s primary goal. 
However, I disagree with the idea that the underlying meaning of such 
festivals has been forgotten. In UK primary schools, children learn in 
detail about the religious reasons for celebrating Christmas, Easter and 
a variety of festivals in other religions. For example, in late December, 
children sing Christmas songs which have a religious content, and they 
may even perform nativity plays telling the story of Jesus’ birth. Families 
also play a role in passing knowledge of religious festivals’ deeper 
significance on to the next generation. The same is true for festivals that 
have a historical background, such as Bonfire Night or Halloween, in the 
sense that people generally learn the stories behind these occasions at 
an early age. 
In conclusion, although people mainly want to enjoy themselves during 
festivals, I believe that they are still aware of the reasons for these 
celebrations. 
(296 words, band 9) 

---

102
Extreme sports such as sky diving and skiing are very dangerous 
and should be banned. To what extent do you agree or disagree with 
this view?
In recent years, extreme sports have become increasingly popular, and 
some people argue that governments should prohibit them. I completely 
disagree with the idea that these sports are too dangerous, and I 
therefore believe that they should not be banned. 
In my opinion, so-called extreme sports are not as dangerous as many 
people think. All sports involve some element of risk, and there should 
always be clear regulations and safety procedures to reduce the 
possibility of accidents. People who take part in extreme sports are 
usually required to undergo appropriate training so that the dangers are 
minimised. For example, anyone who wants to try skydiving will need to 
sign up for lessons with a registered club, and beginners are not allowed 
to dive solo; they must be accompanied by an experienced professional. 
Finally, the protective equipment and technology used in sports from 
motor racing to mountain climbing is constantly improving safety. 
While I support regulations and safety measures, I believe that it would 
be wrong, and almost impossible, to ban extreme sports. In the first place, 
we should all be free to decide how we spend our leisure time; as long 
as we understand the risks, I do not believe that politicians should stop 
us from enjoying ourselves. However, an even stronger argument against 
such a ban would be the difficulty of enforcing it. Many of the most risky 
sports, like base jumping or big wave surfing, are practised far away from 
the reach of any authorities. I cannot imagine the police being called to 
stop people from parachuting off a mountain face or surfing on an isolated 
beach. 
In conclusion,…