- 相关推荐
雅思大作文真题范文
雅思作文真题中，有很多社会类的话题，下面两个雅思作文真题就是社会类的，后面小编还附上了参考范文，大家可以看一看。
慈善援助的本地性和国际性
Some people believe that charity organizations should give aid to those in greatest need, wherever they live. Some people believe that the charity organizations would better concentrate on helping people who live in own country instead. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
慈善机构的援助对象是应该局限在本国人民还是超越国境。
参考范文【1】
It is highly disputable whether the objects of the remedy measures of philanthropic groups should be the destitute at home or the refugees abroad. As far as I am concerned, the answer relies on where the charities are.
Philanthropic organizations of developed countries should reach out to the foreign penurious. To assist those in need is to help the almsgivers themselves, since globalization makes nations closely bonded and much more interactive than ever before. Blue tongue, for example, initially found in South Africa, later attacked European countries such as Netherlands, Brazil, France and Germany. Timely provisions by charities to South Africa the medical donations and personnel might have controlled the spread of infections and prevented consequent tragedies.
Another reason for the charities of the first world to do so is that the laggard regions need more than money. Only with the support from within, backward countries can barely deal with issues concerning education and technology. Well-educated Western pedagogues and advanced textbooks sent by charitable organizations could break the educational vicious circle in underdeveloped countries. What’s more, the introduction of high-tech products such as LED will enable those poverty-stricken areas to foster economy effectively and efficiently.
In contrast, for philanthropists in impoverished countries, priorities should be given to recipients of their own regions. It is utopian to look after the penniless around the world, because the budget is limited, and there are simply too many issues to be resolved. Currently, to provide for itself is what can be expected most from the third world, let alone worrying about those better off.
In conclusion, charitable organizations of affluent societies should extend their financial wealth and technological advantage to poverty-stricken areas while those of impecunious communities should focus on improving their own performances.
参考范文【2】
Globalisation has become and irreversible trend, which can be shown in different aspects, including international aid. while some people claim charity organisation should focus on residents in their own countries, I would argue their responsibility should go beyond that.
Obviously, the whole world is developing into an international community and a variety of resources are increasingly shared by global citizens as fuel energy, education and medical services. If charities could lend a help to those foreigners who are in desperate help, they would give their support in return once in need and this would go beyond the individual level or organisational level to the national level, which means recipient countries may also help donor countries in corresponding perspectives.
Another point is that delivering international aid can also help to establish a good reputation globally, especially when some natural disasters happen, which also displays the principle of humanitarianism. Some disasters are inevitable and it is still quite common to see the reports in respect to was and other calamities. Although we can hardly prevent these tragedies, there is something we can do to relieve the situation and charities should take the responsibility.
On the other hand, those who maintain aid from charity organisations should be restricted to their own people deem that resources are limited and helping people overseas may harm the interest of their own country, For instance, developing countries are still concerned about their own development in the aspects of finance or even food and clothing. Without the help from charities, those living in poor areas would face starving and poverty.
From my perspective of view, international aid should be encouraged and charity organisations should take the responsibility of helping those who are in need regardless of their nationalities. Nevertheless, if it conflicts with their own interests to a great extent, they should ensure the well-being of their own people first.
城镇开发区种树还是建房子?
Some people think that it is more important to plant more trees in open areas in towns and cities than provides more housing. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
有人认为比起提供更多的房子，在城镇开放地区种更多的树更为重要。你在多大程度上同意或者不同意?
参考范文【1】
Urbanization urges some city dwellers to reckon that priorities should be given to vegetation over constructions when it comes to the rare empty lots. In my view, they are being too naive and arbitrary since the answer to the exploitation of the open area lies on the size of the area.
On the one hand, if the targeted area of the open space is limited, it is better to grow trees rather than construct houses. Otherwise, small spacing between buildings would add more sense of oppression and depression to city residents and white collars. Besides, the function of trees inhaling carbon dioxide and exhaling oxygen would dramatically alleviate greenhouse gas effects. More importantly, trees are essential in preserving soil and water and preventing desertification.
On the other hand, the spare land, when large enough, will be of greater value with a new building. Adequate residential districts will ease the intense of high housing price and multi-story commercial towers will accommodate a larger number of employed gifts and talents. The reason why a city can be called a city is that it is convenient for people around it to go there within a short time. Obviously, buildings allow the influx of new blood that stimulates the vitality and creativity of a city while trees seem to be inappropriate for them to meet and talk over coffee.
In a nutshell, it is the area of the open spaces that determines whether there should be more greenery or concrete instead, so it is far from comprehensive for some impetuous environmentalists to blindly appeal for more trees wherever urban spare spaces are found.
参考范文【2】
When it comes to the issue about how towns and cities could utilize their open areas, some people may argue that planting more trees seems more crucial than constructing more houses, but I cannot agree with this opinion.
Admittedly, having more trees may contribute to protecting our environment. Currently, vehicles may produce a lot of toxic gases, posing a threat to the environment, especially the environment in downtown. Then, if there exist more trees in a city or a town, those plants could filter some gases, such as carbon dioxide that may aggravate global warming. Nevertheless, offering residents more dwelling places may be one of the top priorities for the authorities.
Initially, a larger number of houses in cities could alleviate dweller’s economic burdens. It is common that the price of real estate in some cities could be so high that normal citizens cannot afford it. If governments could supply more houses, then, the price of housing may be lowered correspondingly since the supply of housing may exceed its demand. Then, more individuals are potent to own a house in cities, but not live in a temporary one anymore.
Furthermore, building more houses in towns and counties could also serve to boost local economy. When governments decide to construct more buildings in towns, it may lead to a better economic outlook. For example, if there were more houses available for either living or commercial purpose in a town, more investors would find its potential and naturally more funding would also be allocated to that town. Then, local economy could be improved a lot with both financial support from governments and private investment from merchants.
In sum, considering that a larger quantity of houses could reduce economic burdens of citizens and function as a catalyst for rural development simultaneously, building more houses deserves more attention and budgets from the government.
雅思大作文真题
Task：Some people argue that too much attention and too many resources are given to the protection of wild animals and birds.To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Sample answer：
In recent years, animal protection has become an issue of concern. People take different attitudes towards the increasing attention and expenditure on wildlife conservation. Some people suggest that the spending should be redirected to helping other fields in society. I agree with the view that the investment in wildlife protection is not worthwhile.
Animals, as a key component of the whole food chain, have a profound impact on the sustainability of an ecosystem. As we known, every kind of animals plays an important role in natural balance. For instance, the demise of any species will lead to the growth or decline of other species. In some extreme cases, some species may at the verge of extinction such as Dodo bird. If people did not take actions to protect wildlife as soon as possible, we humans would be affected in the end.
However, there are more issues that we need to focus in our society rather than protecting animals. In current social context, the primary task is still to improve living standards since there are many people living under the poverty line. Only when people are in a good living condition, can they pay attention to other social problems. Besides, technology and education are another two aspects of governments to concern. These two industries accelerate the development of society, which will provide a better protection for wildlife in turn.
In conclusion, although the animal is a significant part of ecosystem, it is better for governments to invest more finance and resources in other social problems.
【雅思大作文真题】相关文章：
2017年雅思真题作文03-27
雅思听力真题高频句子01-22
雅思历年真题作文（精选22篇）03-27
2016年4月雅思真题作文03-11
雅思听力7分技巧总结-雅思听力真题详解03-10
2022年雅思真题作文范文（精选27篇）12-01
2016年雅思听力真题高频句子03-30
2016年3月雅思写作真题大作文03-11
2023年9月10日雅思作文真题08-01