Have any query? +9180540 45246


2019-02-27 03:39:21

I urge all the candidates who are about to take the IELTS exam in the month of March and April to go through these essay topics thoroughly in advance. These are the expected IELTS essay topics that you might get in your IELTS exam.

According to a recent study, the more time people use the Internet, the less time they spend with real human beings. Some people say that instead of seeing the Internet as a way of opening up new communication possibilities worldwide, we should be concerned about the effect this is having on social interaction.

How far do you agree with this opinion?

It is evident that, at present, people are spending a considerable amount of time on the Internet, and thus spending less time with real people. I strongly agree that although this use of the Internet has greatly increased the level of communication available, it has also had detrimental effects on the amount and type of social interaction that takes place.

The benefits of the Internet in terms of increased communication are clear, with people connected across the globe. In the past, communication was only possible by phone or mail, which entailed time and expense. It also usually meant just keeping in contact with those people already known to you. With the internet, this has changed dramatically. Email and social networking sites such as Facebook and MSN have created online communities that are global in scale, and they have fostered communication between people and countries that we would not have thought possible in the not too distant past.

That said, there is no doubt in my mind that this has had negative impacts on social interaction. People, especially the younger generation, spend hours of their time online, chatting and on forums. Although this can be beneficial, it is certainly not the same as real interaction with human beings and does not involve the same skills. It is important that children have and maintain real friendships in order to develop their own interpersonal skills. Not only this, but it can also have negative effects on local communities if people are spending most of their time communicating online and not mixing in their neighborhoods, and possibly lead to feelings of isolation for those individuals who do not have a ‘real’ person to turn to in times of need.


To conclude, I believe that the internet has undoubtedly been beneficial, but there are good reasons to be concerned about social interaction in our societies. It is therefore important that we maintain a balance between our online life and our contact with real human beings.

Some people think that the best way to reduce crime is to give longer prison sentences. Others, however, believe there are better alternative ways of reducing crime.

Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Crime is a serious and growing problem in most societies. Although many people believe that the best way to tackle this is to place people in prison for longer periods, others are of the opinion that other measures will be more effective.

There are benefits of giving offenders longer prison sentences. Firstly, spending a long time in prison provides an opportunity for prison services to rehabilitate a prisoner. For example, someone who has committed a serious offense such as assault will need a long time in prison in order to be sure they can be re-educated not to re-offend. In addition to this, longer prison sentences will act as a deterrent for someone who is thinking of committing a crime.

However, some people argue that leaving people in prison for a long time means that they will mix with other criminals and so their character will not improve. One alternative is community service. This gives an offender the opportunity to give something positive back to society, and so it may improve their character. Also, the government could focus its resources on the causes of crime, which would lead to less crime in the future.
In my opinion, it is important to look at alternative methods. Many countries have lengthy prison sentences, but crime has continued to increase throughout the world, so it is clear that this is not completely effective. That said, long prison sentences should remain for those who commit serious crimes such as assault or murder, as justice for the victim and their family should take priority.

To conclude, there are good arguments for and against long sentences, so governments must continue to research the various methods of crime reduction to ensure effective policies are in place.

In order to solve traffic problems, governments should tax private car owners heavily and use the money to improve public transportation.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a solution?

Traffic congestion in many cities around the world is severe. One possible solution to this problem is to impose heavy taxes on car drivers and use this money to make public transport better. This essay will discuss the benefits and drawbacks of such a measure.

One of the first benefits of such a measure is that the heavy taxes would discourage car owners from using their cars because it would become very expensive to drive. This would mean that they would begin to make use of public transport instead, thus reducing traffic problems and pollution as well. Another benefit would be that much more use would be made of public transport if it was improved. It is often the case that public transport in cities is very poor. For example, we often see old buses and trains that people would rather not use. High taxes would generate enough money to make the necessary changes.

Nevertheless, there are drawbacks to such a solution. First and foremost, this would be a heavy burden on car drivers. At present, taxes are already high for a lot of people, and so further taxes would only mean less money at the end of the month for most people who may have no choice but to drive every day. In addition, this type of tax would likely be set at a fixed amount. This would mean that it would hit those with less money harder, whilst the rich could likely afford it. It is therefore not a fair tax.

To conclude, this solution is worth considering to improve the current situation, but there are advantages and disadvantages of introducing such a policy

The percentage of overweight children in western society has increased by almost 20% in the last ten years.

Discuss the causes and effects of this disturbing trend.

Over the last ten years, western societies have seen close to a 20% rise in the number of children who are overweight. This essay will discuss some reasons why this has occurred and examine the consequences of this worrying trend.

The main cause of this problem is a poor diet. Over the last decade, there has been a prolific increase in the number of fast food restaurants. For example, on nearly every high street there is a MacDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Pizza Hut. The food in these places has been proven to be very unhealthy, and much of the advertising is targeted at children, thus ensuring that they constitute the bulk of the customers of these establishments. However, it is not only due to eating out but also the type of diet many children have at home. A lot of food consumed is processed food, especially with regards to ready-made meals which are a quick and easy option for parents who are working hard.

The effects of this have been and will continue to be very serious. Firstly, there has been a large increase in health-related diseases among children, especially diabetes. This debilitating illness means a child has to be injected with insulin for the rest of their life. Not only this, very overweight children often experience bullying from other children, which may affect their mental health. The negative stigma of being overweight may also affect self-esteem.

To sum up, it is evident that there are several causes of obesity among children, and a variety of negative effects. Society must ensure steps are taken to prevent this problem from deteriorating further.
As people live longer and longer, the idea of cloning human beings in order to provide spare parts is becoming a reality. The idea horrifies most people, yet it is no longer mere science fiction.

To what extent do you agree with such a procedure?
Have you any reservations?

The cloning of animals has been occurring for a number of years now, and this has now opened up the possibility of cloning humans too. Although there are clear benefits to humankind of cloning to provide spare body parts, I believe it raises a number of worrying ethical issues.

Due to breakthroughs in medical science and improved diets, people are living much longer than in the past. This, though, has brought with it problems. As people age, their organs can fail so they need replacing. If humans were cloned, their organs could then be used to replace those of sick people. It is currently the case that there are often not enough organ donors around to fulfill this need, so cloning humans would overcome the issue as there would then be a ready supply.

However, for good reasons, many people view this as a worrying development. Firstly, there are religious arguments against it. It would involve creating another human and then eventually killing it in order to use its organs, which could be argued is murder. This is obviously a sin according to religious texts. Also, dilemmas would arise over what rights these people have, as surely they would be humans just like the rest of us. Furthermore, if we have the ability to clone humans, it has to be questioned where this cloning will end. Is it then acceptable for people to start cloning relatives or family members who have died?

To conclude, I do not agree with this procedure due to the ethical issues and dilemmas it would create. Cloning animals have been a positive development, but this is where it should end.

A growing number of people feel that animals should not be exploited by people and that they should have the same rights as humans, while others argue that humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research.

Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people believe that animals should be treated in the same way humans are and have similar rights, whereas others think that it is more important to use them as we desire for food and medical research. This essay will discuss both points of view.

With regard to the exploitation of animals, people believe it is acceptable for several reasons. Firstly, they think that humans are the most important beings on the planet, and everything must be done to ensure human survival. If this means experimenting on animals so that we can fight and find cures for diseases, then this takes priority over animal suffering. Furthermore, it is believed by some that animals do not feel pain or loss as humans do, so if we have to kill animals for food or other uses, then this is morally acceptable.

However, I do not believe these arguments stand up to scrutiny. To begin, it has been shown on numerous occasions by secret filming in laboratories via animal rights groups that animals feel as much pain as humans do, and they suffer when they are kept in cages for long periods. In addition, a substantial amount of animal research is done for cosmetics, not to find cures for diseases, so this is unnecessary. Finally, it has also been proven that humans can get all the nutrients and vitamins that they need from green vegetables and fruit. Therefore, again, having to kill animals for food is not an adequate argument.

To sum up, although some people argue killing animals for research and food is ethical, I would argue there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case, and, therefore, steps must be taken to improve the rights of animals.

Global Warning:

Global warming is one of the most serious issues that the world is facing today.

Probably the most worrying threat to our planet at the present time is global warming. This essay will examine the reasons why global warming is occurring and discuss some possible solutions.

What are the causes of global warming and what measures can governments and individuals take to tackle the issue?

The predominant factors resulting in the warming of the earth are the emissions of CO2 and deforestation. CO2, which damages the ozone layer, comes from several sources, but the most problematic are those coming from the burning of fossil fuels from power plants. This releases thousands of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Another cause of these emissions is the burning of gasoline for transportation, which continues to grow because of our demand for cars and also our increasing worldwide consumption, resulting in an escalating need to transport goods. Also, forests store large amounts of carbon, so deforestation is causing larger amounts of CO2 to remain in the atmosphere.

Nevertheless, there are potential ways to solve these problems, or at least reduce the effects. Firstly, governments need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and promote alternatives. Plant-derived plastics, biodiesel, wind power and solar power are all things that are a step in the right direction, but governments need to enforce the limits on CO2 emissions for the polluting industries in their countries for these to be effective. Also, individuals can play a part by making lifestyle changes. People should try to buy cars with the best fuel economy, and only use their car when really necessary. They can also switch to energy companies that use renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. Finally, small things like buying energy efficient light bulbs, turning off electricity in the house, and planting trees in the garden can help.

To conclude, although global warming is a serious issue, there are steps that governments and individuals can take to reduce their effects. If we are to save our planet, it is important that this is treated as a priority for all concerned.

University education should be free to everyone, regardless of income.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Over recent years, more and more people have been attending university and arguments have persisted as to whether students should pay for this privilege not. Although there are convincing arguments on both sides, I strongly believe that it should be free.

One argument put forward in favor of charging students is that education is becoming more expensive to fund as universities grow in size. Consequently, making students pay may maintain standards and ensure the quality of the teaching. In addition, it is argued that most students benefit from the university in terms of higher paid jobs, so it is fair that they pay for at least some of the cost, especially given that the majority of students attending university are from the middle classes. Last but not least, in many countries, there is a shortage of people to do manual jobs such as plumbing and carpentry, so making the university more expensive may encourage people to take up these jobs.

However, there are a number of arguments in favor of making university education free for all. Firstly, it will encourage more people to attend and this will benefit society. This is because it will lead to a more productive and educated workforce. Research has generally shown that those countries that have a better-educated population via university have higher levels of innovation and productivity. In addition, there is the issue of equality of opportunity. If all students are required to pay, those on a low income may be dissuaded from attending, thus making it unfair. The reason for this is that they will likely not be able to secure financial support from their family so they will be concerned about the debts they will incur in the future.

In conclusion, I am of opinion that all education should remain equally available to all regardless of income. This is not only fair but will also ensure that countries can prosper and develop into the future with a well-educated workforce.
Nowadays food has become easier to prepare. Has this change improved the way people live?

Give reasons for your answer using your own ideas and experience.

With the advantages of technology, the human has shifted to a lifestyle in which individual requirement for delicious food has emerged not just to fulfill the hunger. They want to enjoy a diverse range of foods with a varying taste and for that have invented many new and complex recipes. They want to do it easily and swiftly with the help of modern tools and technology. Has this really improved our lifestyle or has done more harms? Let us examine this in the following essay.

People want to enjoy a diverse type of food – prepare them at home or eat at expensive restaurants. People want to try new cuisines both at home and at restaurants and they want to be served promptly. This is where the modern equipment takes part in, and food preparation nowadays is easier and faster and this has definitely enhanced our lifestyle as it allows us to enjoy food, not just satisfy our tummy.

Moreover, modern tools like the rice cooker, microwave oven, slicer, mixer, electric heater and so on make the cooking process quick and convenient. This saves a great deal of time unlike the past when someone had to be busy all day to prepare meals for the family. People now have more time for recreation, hobbies and for the family. For students, busy corporates, businessmen and researchers, this improvement remarkably enhances their lifestyle.

On the downside, the advancements in food preparation methods have led to the growth of fast food industries and their restaurants pop-up everywhere, like mushrooms after the rain. This might seem convenient for those who do not have time to prepare food at home, but the health hazards are even greater. The obesity rate is skyrocketing in western countries and more people, these days, are suffering from health-related issues.

In conclusion, the latest technology has undeniably improved the quality of an individual’s living standard but not without a cost. To make the best of this development we have to avoid junk food but prepare more nutritious food at home.

Many people believe that women make better parents than men and that is why they have a greater role in raising children in most societies. Others claim that men are just as good as women at parenting.

Write an essay expressing your point of view.

Parental responsibilities and roles are very important for the parents to make their children prepared for the future. The way a father or mother treats a child affects greatly for his/her future growth both mentally and physically. If parents fail to take great care of their children, then those children might go astray and will claim their parents for their misfortune. Every mother and father love his or her children more than anything in this world and they expect them to be great persons and well established in the future. Throughout human history, mothers mainly take care of the children and do most of the works for the children. On the contrary, men are mainly busy outside the home to earn the living for the whole family.

This is not to say that men are not of importance in children caring and they do not know their kids. They are most necessary if children are to appreciate fully the roles of both sexes. But women have proven themselves superior parents as a result of their condition, their less aggressive natures and they are generally better to communicate with kids. Men remain busy at their works and have to stay outside the home most of the time, but women have lots of spare times to share with their children. From the time they are little girls, females learn about nurturing.

First with dolls and later perhaps with younger brothers and sisters; girls are given the role of career. Girls see their mothers in the same roles and so it is natural that they identify this as a female activity. Boys, in contrast, learn competitive roles far removed from what it means to nurture. While boys may dream of adventures, girls’ conditioning means they tend to see the future in terms of raising families. Girls also appear to be less aggressive than boys. In adulthood, it is men, not women, who prove to be the aggressors in crime and in war. Obviously, in raising children, a more patient, gentle manner is preferable than a more aggressive one. Although there certainly exists gentlemen and aggressive women, by and large, females are less likely to resort to violence in attempting to solve problems.

But if we consider that all women are good for their children and men cannot raise a kid properly then perhaps it would be a partial judgment. Is not there any family where the mother has died or not presents and it is the father who takes care of the children as well as does jobs outside? Certainly, there are lots. In third world countries, fathers are comparatively more educated than the mothers and the take care of their children’s education greatly. A child needs the affection and caring of both father and mother.
Cricket has become more popular than the national sports in sub-continental countries.

What do you think are the reasons behind this?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Cricket, traditionally an English sport, is becoming increasingly popular in other parts of the world like Australia, South Africa, and Indian Continents etc. But the popularity is evidently the highest among the countries of the Indo-Pak sub-continent, for reasons that are historical, anthropological, geographical, and even commercial. There are more than 200 crore audiences of cricket only in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Srilanka and they are certainly the highest part of cricket fans than another part of the world.
The game of Cricket came to South-Asia in the hands of the English colonists centuries ago and has seeped into the hearts of the people here while the cricketers of here have won over the hearts of the English. This inter-continental love-affair perhaps has made the south-Asians elope with the Bat and Ball from their national and ethnic sports. Also, World Cup wins in the 80s and 90s, and phenomenal performers like Hanif Mohammed of the 50s and Sachin Tendulkar of late, all have made Cricket more psychologically ethnic than the native sports of this region. Mother Nature had her hand in it too. Cricket is compared with religion in the country like India. Even when the war and conflicts hot the air of India and Pakistan, the stadium tied the friendship these two countries.

Some opine that South-Asians are natural cricketers. It has indeed been proven that the sub-continent players are more adaptive to the physiological demands of Cricket compared to how they get naturalized to other international sports e.g. Football, Basketball etc. Also, the climatic conditions here are relatively more suitable for playing cricket compared to the climates of many other parts of the globe. Not to forget, the virtually uncountable population of this region that continually fuels the ever-sprouting 11-member teams needed to stage only half of a Cricket game and supplies the hundreds of millions of spectators to cheer the players. Altogether, it is like a match made in heaven, “divine” enough to surpass any hereditary bond.

Commerce plays its own amazingly profitable part too. Cricket enthusiasts of here have become the primary consumer base of many global enterprises who mass-charm the sub-continent customers through extravagantly sponsored tournaments. ICC, the governing body of world Cricket, also cajoles the people here because of their financial utility and cossets them from their sporting heredity. The national sport of the Indian sub-continent is only official and in practice, they are not popular at all. The kids play cricket in the fields, streets, rain harvesting fields and even in the terrace of the building. They show a little interest in other national sports and thus how the appeal of those games are reducing.

Regardless of where it came from, the most certain conclusion to be made here is that Cricket is to stay and sustain in the nourishment of the South-Asian pandemonium and will indefinitely reign over the people here like the God-sent hero who conquers not only the matter but also the nativity.
To solve the ever-increasing environmental hazards throughout the world, the best way is to increase the price of fuel.

What is your opinion on the above assumption?

It is true that skyrocketing the fuel price can make a nosedive on the use of vehicles in many cities but curtailing the volume of energy we utilize is not an elixir as it would soar the daily living expense as well. Hence, the human being ought to scout out renewable energy in an attempt to halt the tide of environmental upheaval.

To begin with, protecting the environment only through the buoyant price of energy sounds somewhat over-optimistic. Developing other environment-friendly forms of momentum, such as hydrogen, which is the most potent weapon to deal with this murky water is a far better solution. Despite the exorbitant price of fossil fuel, there is still a kaleidoscope of transportation that will need it. And by extension, an airplane would be a concrete example- although the usage of these kinds of gigantic transportation is bound to dwindle, it is undeniable that they still emit a sheer amount of carbon dioxide. Therefore, diving deeply into the domain of substitute energy can be served as a luminary that close Pandora’s Box.

Besides the renewable energy and the colossal fuel price, rearing a myriad of flora can usher in a great preponderance. What renders easy access to oxygen is the vegetation which would absorb carbon dioxide – the most malignant element to our environment. In this dimension, revive the biodiversity seems as important as importance can be. Shielding the rain forest from deforestation and planting a broad spectrum of trees that spanning from alpines to bush on the major boulevards can truly breathe life into the urban sprawl. Most importantly, it could thoroughly eradicate the environment ailments.

With all that, it is reasonable to extrapolate that spurting the fuel prices can be described as a blunt instrument. Nevertheless, impeding a wide range of anthropocentric activities and cementing the cornerstone of ecosystem might be much more possible and practical to tackle this elusive enigma.

Safety standards are important when building people’s homes. Who should be responsible for enforcing strict building codes – the government or the people who build the homes?

Use your own knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.

The population of the world is increasing and so does the needs for more houses, commercial buildings and other constructions are escalating as well. The high rising buildings constructions, wood-house constructions etc. require more safety & standard issues while this is being violated often and accidents related to building constructions are increasing. Some people opine that Government is solely responsible for ensuring the safety and codes while others believe that house owners are the persons who should be responsible. In my opinion, a government has a role in setting the rules and following it but it the owners and authority of the building owners who should ensure the standard and safety while constructing the houses and commercial buildings.

First of all, it is out of the scope for the government to appoint the necessary manpower and monitoring system in every place where the construction works would occur. Before building any house, people must take permission from the authority and build the house accordingly. But an accident occurs due to the lack of safety procedure; improper use of tools and materials, unskilled labor, unnecessary rush would be because of the owner’s failure to comply with the codes.

The workers, who work for contractions; including the architect, engineer, and labor, should know the safety rules and codes and also should protest when they believe that a rule might have been violated and ignored. The labors should never assent to work in a position which is harmful and risky for them, the engineers should maintain the strict rules instead of blindly following the construction owners order and the local authority should time to time monitor the constructions to avoid the hazards.

In conclusion, the Government does not have the necessary scope to monitor each & every construction in a country and the house owners must know the safety procedures, standards, and rules to make sure the safety.
Many office authorities impose a restriction on smoking within the office premises. Some governments have even banned smoking in all public places. This is a good idea but it takes away some of our freedom.

What are your opinions on this?

There is no scope of argument that cigarette smoking is harmful both for the smoker and people around him/her. Cigarette smoking has two major effects on non-smokers-injurious passive smoking and smoking display that has an invitational or persuasive effect on non-smokers. I believe banning smoking in public places and offices not only will discourage smoking but will also keep the smoking practice out of site, though it might apparently look like transgress into smoker’s freedom. But I believe any harmful activity of a particular person or group of people can not be a definition of freedom. If smoking right in any place is a definition of freedom then why not other drugs? In m opinion, every public place including office must be smoking free.

There are several reasons that government and private authorities are being strict on smoking in offices and even public places. Firstly, this is an accepted fact that smoking is injurious and deadly to health in several ways. Secondly, smoking causes health hazards to non-smokers who inhale smoke passively from smokers. Thirdly, smoking has a strong psychologically influence on others, particularly on children and young who learns from their elderly. Fourthly, in many countries, the cost of health care and insurance has gone up due to smoking-related illnesses. So health authorities and governments are trying to have been seen that due to the restrictions, the habit of smoking is on a decline among office goers.

Though non-smokers think that restricting smoking in offices and public places is a good idea, smokers often view it as an intervention into their right. Smokers argue that cigarette smoking has a direct relation to their workplace performance, though passive smoking can cause objections from colleagues. But considering the harm of smoking, it should be banned.

Though pressure groups such as tobacco companies may discourage restrictions on smoking since the advantages of ban outweigh the disadvantages, mass public support such bans. Moreover, offices have the right to regulate staff behavior and activities and governments too can ban smoking in public places for a greater societal benefit.

In conclusion, restricting smoking in workplaces and in public is a good idea. I can also understand the opinion of smokers that banning smoking in such places limits their work speed but I believe with little practice and determination they can overcome it. So I strongly support the idea of prohibiting smoking in any public place including the office premises.
Nowadays, more and more foreign students are going to English-Speaking countries to learn the “international language – English”. It is undoubtedly true that studying English in an English-speaking country is the best way, but it is not the only way to learn it.

Do you agree or disagree with the above statement?

There is no debate that being in a real English language environment will help anyone to master the language in the fastest and most effective way and many international students prefer to go to English-speaking countries to study and learn the international language. I agree that this is a good way, yet students can learn English in other useful ways and those can be even better than the first approach.

Being in an English speaking country helps students learn English in many ways. Firstly, the surroundings and environment influence our learning. We are forced to speak, read-write, and slowly we start even thinking in English since we have to. Secondly, quick learning of the language can become a strong motivation because, in turn, we will get quick feedback that lets us find what we learn really benefits us in life and education. This inspires us to continue to learn more. It’s a positive reinforcement Learning builds on progressively. The initial learning serves as the basis for further learning. Thirdly, in an English-speaking country, you will be learning from the life and culture which is not present off that land.

However, in this age of cross-culture communication and Internet, learning English in an English-speaking country is not the only way. English language learning opportunities are available in many countries. Nowadays people are able to find various ways of learning the English language in their home country that are highly effective and productive. Watching English movies, television, listening to English music and browsing the Internet can open up a vast plethora of English materials. For instance, one can make use of the vast storage of materials (video, sound, graphics, etc.) on the Internet to facilitate language study. Sometimes non-English speaking students may need a different approach for learning English.

The principle of “different students, different teaching”, by the famous saying by Chinese guru Confucius, maintains that different teaching approaches are useful for different segments of students. The way a foreign student learns a language is quite different from those of an English native speaker. For example, a foreign student higher level; however, it is unnecessary for a native speaker. Last but not least, on some occasions, students may find teachers in their own countries do a better job in figuring out their exact weak points and the remedies for them. A teacher of a non-English country understand the basis of a student and can combine both the native language and English to make the study plan and this might be more helpful than a native English teacher’s approach of studying.

In conclusion, I believe studying English in English-speaking country is a good way but in many cases, the other ways can be proven to be more efficient than being in an English speaking country.

Do you support that nuclear technology should be used for constructive purposes?

Use your own knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.

Give reasons for your viewpoint.

Many people are afraid of nuclear technology because of the dangers associated with its use. And belligerent leaders and terrorists may cause great human disasters by the use of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Though it is true that nuclear weapons pose the greatest threat to life, I personally support the use of nuclear technology for constructive purposes can bring human benefit.

The most worrying aspect of nuclear technology is its use for military purposes by many high and mighty countries. Enough atomic bombs have already been made which are capable of completely destroying the planet. An increasing number of countries now have nuclear weapons or have the technology required to make such bombs, and there is an ongoing debate about how to control the threat of nuclear weapons. After the fall of Russia, many Russian scientists have found their nuclear technology expertise is in high demand in countries that have an ambition with nuclear technology.

Many believe that, at that time, technology has been secretly made available to many aspiring countries such as Iraq, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and others. Experts believe that nowadays, many confrontational countries and terrorist organizations have nuclear power and they know how they could use this power for terrorism and mass destruction. However, it would have been better if it had never been used to create nuclear weapons. If life on earth is to continue, we must control nuclear weapons of mass destruction. To eliminate the threat of nuclear war, all the nuclear power nations of the world should agree to disarm as soon as possible.

Nuclear power stations provide an important source of cheap power in many industrialized nations and some developing countries. However, like most sophisticated technology, there are dangers associated with it. Even though very high safety precautions are taken, there have been few cases of disasters; two or three were major human disasters. Yet many experts believe that in the coming days, nuclear power will be the most efficient source of energy for mankind.

Nuclear technology has been widely used in medical science. X-rays are widely used technology that medical diagnosis. Radiotherapy is widely used to help cure some diseases such as cancer. Controlled and measured radiation is applied to malignant cancerous cells to kill them or stop their spreading.

In conclusion, nuclear technology certainly has many positive uses and offers lots of promise. But we have to bear in mind that it is dangerous if not handled properly or goes to the wrong hands. Nuclear technology should be only used for the true benefit of mankind. If we forget this, we have to take responsibility for our own destiny.
A zoo has no useful purpose.

Use specific reasons and examples to explain your answer.

Keeping wild animals in cages for public exhibition is a tradition that people are performing for a long and for majority people this is an amusement and educational purpose for kids while others think it to be a very inhuman act. This is a much-debated issue and I personally find no usefulness of a zoological garden where these animals and birds of different kinds are kept for public entertainment.

First of all, the idea of keeping wild animals in cages is really a brutal one and human should not be proud of act like this. Who has given us the power and authority to forcefully bring animals to zoos and then being hilarious watching their activities? Do our weapon and brain makes us superior and powerful enough to decide the lives of other species? No, if we are superior to those wild animals, it is our humanity and superiority of thinking power and where would that humanity is when we encase other species? There are thousands of amusement parks and children parks and we should not make a zoo that would only represent our brutality and the outcry of the animals.
Have we ever thought if a more intelligent species arrives in our territory and encases us as we do to other animals, how pathetic that would be for us? Many people would say that those are educational purposes and to let the kids know about those animals. But in a zoo what we see are encased animals with their dismay and helplessness. Children would never learn the true nature of those animals when they would learn it from a zoo. Animal Planet and Discovery channels are two better alternatives for children to learn about those wild animals than the zoo.

The zoo is many countries are used for commercial purposes and no matter what the authorities do; they can’t ensure a free life for a bird which should be flying in the sky rather than trying to escape from the cage.

In conclusion, the zoo serves no useful purpose and there are no good reasons to put the animals and birds in cages.
The 21st century has begun.

What changes do you think this new century will bring?

What changes do you think this new century will bring_

Use examples and details in your answer as in IELTS essay topic.

As we have already stepped into the 21st century, it is inevitably true that enormous changes like advances in technology, health care, and transportation will be visibly experienced. This essay will highlight the beneficial growth in our health sector and transport system that is possible to be made available in the new generation.

Development in health care will be greatly observed in this century. First of all, the diagnosis of severe diseases will be straight-forward as a consequence of the presence of high technological apparatuses and innovative devices. Secondly, rehabilitation and cure to deadly illnesses will be less complicated, this is due to the constant research of the professionals like the medical team and scientists on the treatment like medicines, effective exercise, and healthy eating. Lastly, the percentage of deaths of human beings will significantly decrease and therefore, the quality of life will enhance and chances of people to live longer will gradually rise.

Another noticeable trend that we can look forward to in this era is the technological approach to transportation. Faster and more reliable transport system will be made available to the public at a cheaper price. Hence, people all over the world can step foot to the different diversity of each country close to a blink of an eye. A good example is the constant competition of the airline companies, therefore, decreasing their price range or offering more reasonable package holidays to the mass public.

In conclusion, there are several advantages that human beings will experience in the 21st century. Through vigorous experiments and knowledge learned from the previous generations, people may expect a more convenient life such as able to live a longer and healthier as well as traveling will less financial worry.

People remember special gifts or present that they receive. Why?

Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
A person in his lifetime receives many gifts and presents and with the span of time he might forget about them. But special gifts are kind of gifts that he would remember for a long time or even in some cases forever. There are various reasons why we remember those short of special gifts and the most influential reasons are physiological, economic, memory and effort related to the gifts.

First of all, a gift, no matter what it is, is always special when it is given by a very dear person. Gift received from parents or children on special occasions is cherished by most of us. In this case, the cordiality and attachment it more important than the gift itself. For instance, many people treasure the gift they receive from a lover, friend, father, mother or a special person for a long time. The gift I got from my father on my 12th birthday was merely a diary and that I still consider a very special gift for me. This special gift reminds me of my childhood and the love of my father and that’s why I will always remember it.

Second, people often wish for certain things which are they usually can’t buy and if such a present is given someone, it is likely that he will remember it for a long. For instance, when my uncle purchased me a laptop when I was around 18 years old, I was very excited and I will never forget the gift. Sometimes the surprise gifts are memorable and become special to some persons. For instance, the gift I gave to my college on his birthday became one of the special gifts for him as he later expressed. Thus these sorts of special gifts remind us of the goodwill and love we actually receive from that person.

Third, expensive gifts often surprise people and can become their special gift. If a car is bought to someone which he would not be able to afford it ought to become a special gift as well. It is common human psychology that they would remember such gifts for a long.

Finally, the memory related to a gift is the most important factor for a special gift. The small gift given by a father who is no more with the children would definitely become a valuable gift to that son/daughter. With time the gift might get lost or broken or even useless but the memory remains and thus the memory involved with a gift is an important factor and that’s why people would remember the gift.

Follow us on Facebook for interesting blogs, IELTS updates, and much more.

All rights reserved. Made by Logic Providers