Sample #10

We are becoming increasingly dependent on computers. They are used in businesses, hospitals, crime detection and even to fly planes. What things will they be used for in the future? Is this dependence on computers a good thing or should we he more auspicious of their benefits?

model answer:

Computers are a relatively new invention.

The first computers were built fifty years ago and it is only in the last thirty or so years that their influence has affected our everyday life.

Personal computers were introduced as recently as the early eighties. In this short time they have made a tremendous impact on our lives.

We are now so dependent on computers that it is hard to imagine what things would be like today without them.

You have only got to go into a bank when their main computer is broken to appreciate the chaos that would occur if computers were suddenly removed world-wide.

In the future computers will be used to create bigger and even more sophisticated computers.

The prospects for this are quite alarming.

They will be so complex that no individual could hope to understand how they work.

They will bring a lot of benefits but they will also increase the potential for unimaginable chaos.

They will, for example, be able to fly planes and they will be able to co ordinate the movements of several planes in the vicinity of an airport.

Providing all the computers are working correctly nothing can go wrong. If one small program fails disaster.

There is a certain inevitability that technology will progress and become increasingly complex.

We should, however, ensure that we are still in a position where we are able to control technology.

It will be all too easy to suddenly discover that technology is controlling us.

By then it might be too late I believe that it is very important to be suspicious of the benefits that computers will bring and to make sure that we never become totally dependent on a completely technological world.

Sample #11

Smokers can cause themselves serious health problems. The choice to smoke is made freely and with knowledge of dangers. Smokers should therefore expect to pay more for medical treatment than non-smokers. To what extent do you agree with this statement?

model answer:

Everyone has the choice of being a smoker or not.

The people who choose to smoke do so knowing there is a risk of causing harmful damage to themselves.

However, I do not entirely agree that these people should have to pay more to receive all the medical treatment they need.

I think there are many situations in which a medical problem has nothing to do with whether a person smokes or not.

In these cases, where an illness has no relation to smoking, then I believe that smokers should not be required to pay more than other people for their medical treatment.

Most car accidents, for example, have no connection with smoking, and the people who are injured ought to have the same medical help, regardless of the cost.

And what about the common flu - it does not seem justifiable to me that a smoker should have to pay more to see a doctor for an illness we can all contract.

On the other hand, I agree that a smoker should pay more than a non-smoker for the necessary treatment of any condition which has been caused by smoking.

The principle that people should take responsibility for their own actions is a good one.

Consequently, if a person chooses to smoke knowing that this habit can cause serious health problems, then there is no reason why the community or an insurance company should have to pay for medical treatment for an illness which could have been avoided.

In many countries, cigarette packets have a clear warning that smoking can cause health problems and so no smoker can claim not to know the danger.

Lung cancer is sometimes a fatal disease and the treatment is both lengthy and expensive, and it is unfair for the smoker to expect the hospital or the community to carry the cost.

In fact, it could also be argued that those who smoke in public should be asked to pay extra because of the illness caused to passive smokers.

In conclusion, I feel that smokers should pay more in cases related to smoking, but for any other illness they should pay the same as anyone else.