TEST 38

In many countries, imprisonment is the most common solution to crimes. However, some people believe that better education will be a more effective solution. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

            Although prison is considered as a powerful way to control crime, improvements on education have gained social endorsement as a means to eliminate the problem from its root. Personally, I agree with supporters of the second statement.

            On the one hand, the reasons why prisons are of necessity for social security are varied. Advocates of maintaining prison systems insist that law breakers should be contained to ensure the safety of other citizens. Especially, dangerous criminals such as murderers have to be imprisoned for their felonies because this punishment is a symbol of justice and fairness. Furthermore, severe prison sentences are believed to be a deterrent against crimes. Knowing there might be a chance of getting caught and condemned to jail, which also means losing freedom and leading a miserable life in a cell, those who are having the intention of committing crimes would reconsider going down the path.

            On the other hand, I would side with those who think education serves as a remedy for the origin of crimes. Education contributes greatly to heightening people’s intellect and to forming a civilized society. With access to better educational services, citizens would be well-informed about the damage that committing crimes would cause to their community and themselves, which eventually will lead to a decline in crime rates. Additionally, the possession of certain qualifications through fundamental education like vocational training could secure a person’s stable life, which would dispel any ideas of committing crimes.

            In conclusion, it seems to me that improving education systems would be the most justifiable to answer to the question of crimes even though the impacts of prisons are undeniable.

TEST 39

International travel is becoming cheaper, and countries are opening their doors to more and more tourists. Do the advantages of increased tourism outweigh disadvantages?

            Travelling abroad is becoming more affordable than ever before, and many nations are implementing new approaches to attract more tourists. Although there are still drawbacks of international travel, I think its values are more significant.

            On the one hand, the downsides of welcoming foreign visitors are varied. First, the local environment can be adversely affected due to facility and infrastructural development. For example, in Vietnam, many tourism companies are permitted to chop down a great area of forests to construct modern commodities such as hotels and golf courses, exerting dire consequences on natural habitats. As for the countries that play host to international tourists, the rise in costs of living may lay much pressure on local people and be a detriment to domestic travel. This is because the growth in the number of tourists from abroad would encourage costs of hotel rooms and other services to increase. People in the neighborhood and domestic visitors would suffer in comparison.

            On the other hand, I suppose the benefits of international travel would eclipse those analyzed disadvantages. First, the regional economy can enormously benefit from the burgeoning tourism industry as more occupations will be created to accommodate the needs of tourists. Local people can have more job opportunities in hotels or restaurants and therefore earn more money to improve their living standards. Second, the increased number of foreign people coming to visit another country would evidently enhance tourism industries, contributing greatly to the wealth of that country. If tourists enjoy their trips, they will recommend the destination to their friends or perhaps they will come back in the future.

            In conclusion, it appears to me that the merits of international tourism are more notable than its drawbacks.