Test 1

The disparity in remuneration between directors of large organizations and ordinary

employees has sparked a contentious debate. While some argue that such a salary
gap is a prerequisite for effective/productive/conducive leadership and
organizational success, others contend that it exemplifies an unjust economic
structure. This essay will elucidate both perspectives before articulating my stance
on the issue.
Proponents of high salaries for executives often assert that this compensation is
justified due to the immense responsibilities and pressures associated with
leadership positions. Directors are tasked with making crucial decisions that impact
the entirety of an organization, and their strategic vision is essential for navigating
complex business landscapes. For instance, during periods of economic instability,
it is the directors who are required to formulate and implement strategies that can
safeguard the jobs of thousands of employees. Furthermore, the competitive nature
of the global market necessitates organizations to attract top talent; thus, generous
salaries can serve as an incentive to recruit and retain individuals with the
experience and expertise essential for steering a company towards success.66
Conversely, critics of this practice highlight the ethical implications of exorbitant
executive salaries, arguing that they contribute to widening income inequality and
diminish employee morale. The rationale behind the belief that such pay scales are
unfair is rooted in the idea that ordinary employees also play a crucial role in an
organization's success. For example, the consistent efforts of lower-level
employees are integral to the day-to-day operations that drive profitability.
Furthermore, the stark contrasts in earnings can lead to feelings of
disenfranchisement among staff, undermining their motivation and loyalty. This
perception of injustice can cultivate a toxic workplace culture, yielding adverse
effects on productivity. Therefore, many advocate for a more equitable distribution
of organizational profits that would reward employees at all levels, thereby
fostering a more harmonious and motivated workforce.
In conclusion, while there are valid arguments in favor of high executive salaries
due to the responsibilities they entail, the growing unrest regarding income
inequality cannot be dismissed. It is imperative for organizations to strike a balance
between rewarding effective leadership and ensuring fair compensation across all
levels of employment. Ultimately, a more equitable approach may enhance
organizational cohesion and long-term success.
Test 2
The experience of inhabiting/occupying/domiciling in multiple locations during
one’s formative years is a subject of contentious debate. Proponents argue that such
mobility cultivates adaptability and cultural awareness, while critics
warn/alert/notify/caution/counsel of potential disruptions to emotional stability and
social development. This essay elucidate the nuanced implications of frequent
relocation during childhood, weighing its cognitive benefits against its
psychosocial costs.
A primary benefit of geographic mobility in childhood lies in/ensconced
in/embedded in its capacity to invigorate/leverage/amplify/patronize cognitive
flexibility and cultural competence. Exposure to diverse environments—whether
rural, urban, or international—equips children with a multifaceted understanding of
societal norms and traditions. For instance, a child transitioning from a provincial
town to a metropolitan hub encounters not only new educational opportunities but
also a mosaic of perspectives that challenge parochial worldviews. Such
experiences accelerate/impel/facilitate/precipitate/bring about/trigger cognitive
maturation, as children learn to assimilate into unfamiliar social contexts and
collaborate with peers from varied backgrounds. Crucially, the adaptability honed
through these transitions proves indispensable in adulthood, enabling individuals to
navigate academic, professional, and interpersonal challenges with resilience.
However, this transient lifestyle may exact a toll on emotional well-being. The
repeated disruption of social networks complicates the formation of enduring
friendships, often leaving children vulnerable to feelings of isolation. Empirical
studies suggest that frequent school changes correlate with heightened anxiety, as
students face recurring cycles of social reintegration and academic recalibration.
For example, a child relocating biennially may struggle to develop a stable self-
concept, as their identity fractures across disparate cultural contexts. Moreover, the
absence of long-term community ties can impede the development of trust and
belonging—cornerstones of emotional security. Thus, while mobility cultivates
adaptability, it risks undermining the very stability required for holistic
development.
In summation, childhood geographic mobility presents a paradox: it simultaneously
enriches cognitive and adaptive capacities while potentially jeopardizing emotional
grounding. Families contemplating such a lifestyle must adopt a deliberative
approach—leveraging opportunities for cultural exposure while mitigating
instability through consistent support systems. The ideal equilibrium lies not in
rejecting mobility outright but in structuring it to maximize developmental gains
while safeguarding psychosocial well-being.
Test 3
V1-The disparity in income levels is a pervasive phenomenon in modern
economies, where a select few command disproportionately high salaries. This
reality has ignited intense debate regarding its societal implications. Advocates
argue that high earnings drive economic progress by rewarding talent and
innovation, while critics contend that unchecked income inequality
invigorates/cultivates/leverages social division and compel/call
for/prescribe/constrain/enforce government intervention through salary caps. This
essay will examine both perspectives before advocating for a balanced approach
that reconciles economic incentives with social equity.
Proponents of high salaries argue that they are instrumental in fostering economic
dynamism and innovation. Exceptional compensation often reflects specialized
skills, leadership, or entrepreneurial vision—qualities that propel industries
forward. Leading corporations such as Apple and Tesla, for instance, owe their
success to visionary leaders and top-tier professionals whose contributions justify
their substantial remuneration. Furthermore, high earners often reinvest their
wealth, stimulating job creation, research, and infrastructure development. The
prospect of significant financial reward also serves as a powerful motivator,
encouraging individuals to pursue excellence, take calculated risks, and contribute
to national prosperity. In this view, restricting salaries could stifle ambition and
impede economic growth.
Conversely, critics warn that exorbitant income disparities breed social inequity
and unrest. When wealth becomes concentrated among a privileged minority, those
in lower-income brackets may experience diminished opportunities and eroding
trust in the economic system. The United States, for example, exhibits stark income
inequality alongside heightened political polarization and public dissatisfaction.
Additionally, excessive wealth accumulation can distort market competition and
democratic processes, as affluent individuals and corporations wield
disproportionate influence over policy-making. Advocates for salary restrictions
argue that capping excessive earnings could promote fairer wealth distribution,
reduce social stratification, and enhance long-term societal stability.
In conclusion, while high salaries can incentivize innovation and economic vitality,
unmitigated income inequality poses significant risks to social cohesion. Rather
than imposing rigid salary limits—which may discourage productivity—
governments should adopt progressive fiscal policies, such as equitable taxation
and robust social welfare programs. This approach would mitigate inequality while
preserving the motivational benefits of competitive compensation. By striking this
balance, societies can harness the advantages of a merit-based economy without
sacrificing fairness and collective well-being.
V2(more formal)
While one school of thought holds that the presence of high-net-worth
individuals could contribute exponentially to the development of a country,
others are of the opinion that the government should impose a ceiling on
individual earnings. This essay will first closely examine both views before
concluding that I agree with the former.
Advocates of earning limits often argue based on the principle of social
equality and stability. By ensuring that wealth is distributed evenly among the
population, the government could help bridge the income gap and build a
more equitable society where fewer individuals experience poverty or financial
hardship. Additionally, when income disparities are less pronounced, there
would be fewer incidences of social unrest, political turmoil, and other social
conflicts, which theoretically fosters social cohesion and long-term stability.
However, this thinking often overlooks the illicit activities some individuals are
willing to engage in just to circumvent the prescribed limits and augment their
income. Bribery, corruption, tax evasion, and offshore accounts are some of
the common means of wealth concealment. This could lead to a lack of
transparency and erosion of public trust, undermining the very efforts to
promote income equality and reduce social turbulence that this proposal sets
out to do in the first place.
Furthermore, there is a stronger case to be made for allowing freedom in
wealth attainment. This is because wealthy individuals could act as an
economic stimulus through investments, job creation, and their high spending
power. Of course, concerns about the widening gap between the rich and the
poor are valid, yet the government often requires these high-earners to pay
taxes commensurate with their income. This substantial tax revenue could, in
turn, be channeled into essential endeavors, such as infrastructure
development, healthcare and educational facility improvement, which benefit
society as a whole. Some extremely affluent people also actively engage in
philanthropic activities, donating large sums of their wealth to charitable
causes, social programs and other community development projects to help
uplift those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
In conclusion, the restriction on one's earnings should not be implemented as
it could entail various negative implications and undermine social well-being.
Individuals should instead be granted the freedom to amass wealth based on
their ability and contributions as long as they fulfill their tax obligations. This
helps inject an influx of wealth in society, promoting economic development
and alleviating the hardship of the underprivileged.
Test 4
The question of whether juvenile offenders or their guardians should bear
responsibility for criminal transgressions has long engendered vigorous debate
among legal scholars, ethicists, and policymakers. While some assert that minors
who engage in unlawful conduct must face commensurate legal repercussions,
others contend that the primary onus lies with parents, whose influence during
formative years profoundly shapes behavioral development. This essay undertakes
a rigorous analysis of both positions before advancing a judicious synthesis that
reconciles the imperatives of justice with the realities of developmental
psychology.
Proponents of juvenile accountability argue that the principles of retributive and
deterrent justice necessitate holding young offenders responsible for their actions.
They posit that cognitive development research affirms adolescents’ capacity for
moral reasoning, thereby undermining claims of complete irresponsibility. For
instance, in cases of premeditated youth violence or cybercrimes, perpetrators
frequently exhibit a lucid understanding of the illegality and consequences of their
actions, yet proceed with deliberate intent. Legal sanctions, in this view, serve not
merely as punitive measures but as essential instruments of societal pedagogy,
reinforcing normative boundaries and forestalling recidivism. Moreover, structured
judicial interventions—such as rehabilitative sentencing—may cultivate a sense of
agency and accountability, thereby mitigating future criminality.
Conversely, advocates of parental liability emphasize the inextricable link between
familial environment and juvenile delinquency. Empirical studies underscore that
minors raised in households marred by neglect, domestic violence, or criminal
exposure are statistically predisposed to antisocial behavior. From this vantage
point, the justice system’s overreliance on penalizing juveniles
forms/composes/authorizes/empowers/delegates/commissioned/compounds/
established a misallocation of responsibility, as it fails to address the foundational
role of guardians in either fostering or failing to prevent delinquency. Stricter
sanctions for negligent parenting—ranging from mandatory counseling to legal
liability—could incentivize more conscientious child-rearing, thereby impairing the
systemic conditions that breed youth crime.In synthesizing these perspectives, it
becomes evident that an absolutist approach—whether exclusively punitive or
wholly deterministic—is untenable. While juvenile offenders must be held
accountable to uphold the integrity of legal institutions, parental culpability cannot
be dismissed as ancillary. A bifurcated legal framework, one that adjudicates
minors with developmental sensitivity while concurrently enforcing parental
accountability, offers the most equitable and conducive solution. By harmonizing
corrective justice with preventive social policy, society can more adeptly dismantle
the cyclical nature of delinquency, fostering both individual responsibility and
systemic reform.
Thus, the path forward demands neither the unqualified exoneration of youth nor
the wholesale indictment of parents, but rather a jurisprudence that acknowledges
the multifaceted etiology of crime. Only through such a balanced paradigm can we
aspire to a justice system that is both morally coherent and pragmatically effective.
Test 5
The escalating crisis of urban air pollution has compelled policymakers worldwide
to come up with innovative/cutting-edge solutions, among which car-free days have
garnered/triggered/brought about/promtped
increasing/baloonging/accelerating/escalating/surging/soaring/progressive/
accumulating/proliferating attention. Supporters hail such initiatives as
conducive/productive instruments for curbing/harnessing/moderating/inhibiting
vehicular emissions and
promoting/leveraging/invigorating/cultivating/incentivizing/galvanizing/reinforcing
environmental consciousness. Conversely, skeptics dismiss them as superficial
gestures with negligible long-term impact, advocating/championing instead for
more systemic interventions. This essay will elucidate both perspectives before
articulating a reasoned position.
Proponents of car-free days assert that even short-term restrictions on motor
vehicles can yield tangible environmental benefits. Empirical evidence from
various global cities demonstrates a marked decline in particulate matter and
nitrogen dioxide levels during these designated days. Beyond their immediate
environmental impact, car-free events serve a significant symbolic function: they
disrupt the entrenched dependence on private vehicles and expose the public to
alternative, more sustainable modes of transportation. By transforming urban
spaces into pedestrian-friendly environments, such initiatives can
foster/facilitate/embolden/instill/spearhead/spur/propel/elevate/harbor a cultural
shift towards greener mobility and civic responsibility.
However, critics argue that car-free days, though well-intentioned, are largely
ineffectual in addressing the underlying causes of air pollution. They contend that a
temporary suspension of vehicular traffic amounts to a transient improvement that
dissipates as soon as normal traffic resumes. Moreover, these events may
inadvertently inconvenience commuters and businesses, particularly in the absence
of robust public transportation infrastructure. From a policy standpoint, critics
advocate for more comprehensive and enduring solutions—such as stringent
emissions regulations, expansion of electric vehicle incentives, and large-scale
investment in clean energy. These measures, they argue, are better suited to
engender systemic change and accomplish sustained reductions in air pollutants.In
my considered opinion, while car-free days should not be regarded as a panacea,
they are nonetheless a valuable component of a broader environmental strategy.
Their merit lies less in their immediate efficacy and more in their potential to
catalyze public engagement and political will. When implemented in conjunction
with structural reforms/modifications, car-free initiatives can amplify/progress(v)
awareness, galvanize action, and contribute to a long-term transition towards
sustainable urban living.
In conclusion, although car-free days may appear limited in scope and duration,
their symbolic and educational value should not be underestimated. When
integrated within a multifaceted policy framework, they can play as a powerful
adjunct to more substantive environmental reforms. Ultimately, it is through the
confluence of public participation, technological innovation, and legislative resolve
that meaningful progress in combating air pollution will be achieved.
Test 6
In contemporary discourse surrounding cultural influence, few phenomena are as
pervasive—or as polarizing—as the role of celebrities as comtemporary role
models for youth. While critics rightly highlight the potential pitfalls of celebrity
worship, a balanced analysis reveals that, when harnessed constructively, the sway
of public figures can catalyze meaningful societal progress.
Undeniably, the darker facets of celebrity culture warrant serious scrutiny. The
relentless curation of extravagant lifestyles on social media platforms
publicizes/demontstrates/manifests/displays/exhibits a dangerous cult of hedonism
and material excess, seducing impressionable minds into equating self-worth with
superficial markers of status. Figures like Paris Hilton, whose cultural capital stems
largely from conspicuous consumption rather than substantive achievement,
exemplify this troubling paradigm(khuôn mẫu). More alarmingly, the
normalization of reckless behavior—from substance abuse to orchestrated
scandals(bê bối được dàn dựng)—poses tangible risks when emulated by
adolescents lacking the discernment to separate performance from principle. Such
influences not only imperil individual well-being but also erode the ethical
foundations of communities.
Yet to dismiss celebrity influence as inherently deleterious would be to overlook its
transformative potential when channeled toward virtuous ends. Public figures
possess an unparalleled capacity to amplify critical social causes, leveraging their
platforms to mobilize masses where traditional advocacy often falters. Consider
H'Hen Niê, the Vietnamese beauty queen whose environmental crusades converted
her celebrity into a conduit for ecological stewardship, inspiring legions of
followers to embrace sustainability. Equally vital are those artists, athletes, and
intellectuals whose life stories embody the virtues of resilience and excellence—
think of Serena Williams’ redefinition of athletic dominance or Lin-Manuel
Miranda’s democratization of high culture. These narratives furnish youth with
aspirational blueprints that transcend mere fame, celebrating instead the marriage
of talent and tenacity.
Ultimately, the societal impact of celebrity role models hinges not on their
existence, but on collective vigilance in curating their influence. The onus lies
twofold: young individuals must cultivate media literacy to admire critically rather
than blindly, while society must incentivize celebrities to wield their influence with
ethical intentionality. When this equilibrium is struck, celebrity culture evolves
from a vacuous spectacle into a dynamic force for enlightenment—proving that
even in the age of influencers, substance can triumph over superficiality.
Test 7
The debate over the extent of responsibilities assigned to children—particularly the
tension between obligations and leisure—remains a subject of considerable
discourse. Advocates of increased duties argue that such expectations foster
discipline, self-reliance, and a sense of contribution in young individuals.
Conversely, opponents assert that childhood should prioritize freedom and
enjoyment, allowing for organic development during these formative years. This
essay examines both perspectives before presenting a balanced conclusion.
Proponents of assigning responsibilities to children contend that structured duties
cultivate essential life skills and a resilient work ethic. When children participate in
household chores, academic responsibilities, or even assist in family enterprises,
they acquire competencies such as accountability, time management, and
collaboration. These qualities not only enhance academic performance but also
prepare them for future professional and personal challenges. Moreover, age-
appropriate responsibilities can reinforce a child’s sense of belonging and self-
efficacy. For instance, a child entrusted with preparing a family meal may
experience pride in their contribution, reinforcing their role within the household
and bolstering self-esteem. Such experiences can lay the foundation for a proactive
and conscientious adulthood.
However, critics argue that excessive responsibilities may encroach upon a child’s
right to an unburdened childhood, potentially impeding emotional and social
development. Unstructured play and leisure are vital for nurturing creativity,
interpersonal skills, and psychological well-being. An overemphasis on duties risks
inducing stress, diminishing enthusiasm for learning, and even fostering resentment
toward responsibilities. For example, a child overwhelmed by chores may miss
crucial opportunities for imaginative play, peer interaction, or simply resting—
elements that are fundamental to cognitive and emotional maturation. Furthermore,
undue pressure may paradoxically undermine the intended benefits of
responsibility, leaving children feeling overburdened rather than empowered.
In conclusion, while responsibilities can instill discipline and practical skills,
excessive demands may compromise a child’s holistic development. Therefore, a
measured approach—one that integrates age-appropriate duties while safeguarding
time for play and self-discovery—is paramount. Striking this equilibrium ensures
that children develop resilience and competence without sacrificing the joys of
childhood. Ultimately, fostering an environment that harmonizes responsibility
with freedom best prepares children for the complexities of adulthood while
allowing them to thrive in the present.
Test 8( super advanced version)
The role of educational institutions has increasingly been scrutinized, particularly
regarding their responsibilities beyond academic instruction. While some argue that
schools should focus solely on imparting knowledge, I contend that it is equally
essential for them to
cultivate/invigorate/leverage/exhort/galvanize/spearhead/spur/harbor/facilitate/
stimulate/instigate/augment/patronize/yield/ameliorate/endorse/elevate/precipitate
good behavior and social skills in children to foster holistic development.
Firstly, teaching good behavior is pivotal for equipping students with the social
competencies required to navigate complex interpersonal relationships. Schools
serve as a microcosm of society where children interact with diverse peers. By
instilling values such as respect, empathy, and cooperation, educational institutions
can prepare students not only to excel academically but also to function effectively
in collaborative environments. For instance, programs that promote teamwork and
conflict resolution skills can enhance students' abilities to work together on
projects, thereby reflecting the dynamics of the workplace they will eventually
enter. Moreover, Children who learn to express kindness and integrity are more
likely to contribute positively to their communities, establishing a virtuous cycle of
positive social conduct.
Conversely, some may assert that classrooms should prioritize intellectual
achievements over behavioral education. They claim that the pressure to excel in
standardized tests leaves little room for softer skills training, which could dilute
academic rigor. However, this perspective neglects the growing body of research
suggesting that emotional intelligence is as crucial as cognitive ability for long-
term success. Implementing social-emotional learning (SEL) frameworks in
educational curriculums can lead to improved academic performance, as students
who feel supported are more likely to engage deeply with their studies.
Additionally, an emphasis on ethical behavior can significantly reduce incidents of
bullying and improve the overall school climate, demonstrating that academic
success and good behavior are not mutually exclusive but rather interdependent
facets of a child's education.
In conclusion, while the traditional focus of educational institutions has been on
fostering intellectual development, it is evident that teaching children good
behavior is an equally imperative responsibility. A well-rounded education that
incorporates moral and ethical teachings prepares students not only for academic
challenges but also for meaningful societal participation. Therefore, schools should
embrace the dual role of nurturing both the mind and character of future
generations.
Test 9
The debate surrounding the optimal classroom size for language acquisition is one
that elicits strong opinions from educators and students alike. While some argue
that smaller classes enhance learning through personalized attention and tailored
instruction, others contend that class size is inconsequential, asserting that effective
teaching strategies can be employed regardless of the number of students present.
This essay will examine both perspectives before articulating a reasoned opinion.
Proponents of smaller class sizes often emphasize the benefits of individualized
instruction. In a diminutive learning environment, educators can engage more
profoundly with each student, identifying unique strengths and weaknesses. For
instance, a language teacher in a class of ten students can provide immediate and
personalized feedback, thereby accelerating the acquisition process. Moreover,
smaller classes foster a more interactive and communicative atmosphere, allowing
students to practice speaking skills more frequently and with greater confidence.
Research substantiates this viewpoint, indicating that students in smaller classes
typically achieve higher comprehension levels and demonstrate enhanced speaking
proficiency compared to their counterparts in larger settings.
Conversely, those who argue that class size is a trivial factor in language learning
maintain that the quality of teaching and the curriculum are far more critical. They
posit that an experienced and dynamic instructor can facilitate effective learning
experiences for students, regardless of how many are present. Moreover, larger
classes can offer diverse perspectives, enriching discussions and helping students
develop a broader understanding of the language within different cultural contexts.
For instance, a language course with twenty students may incorporate role-playing
activities that reflect a variety of accents and dialects, thus preparing learners for
real-world communication. Additionally, advancements in educational technology
can support larger classes by enabling personalized learning tracks and interactive
platforms that cater to individual needs.
In conclusion, while the benefits of smaller language classes are evident in terms of
individualized attention and enhanced interaction, it is equally important to
recognize the potential of larger classes to provide diverse learning experiences and
leverage effective teaching methods. Ultimately, the effectiveness of language
acquisition may rely more on the quality of instruction and classroom dynamics
rather than the sheer number of students. Therefore, a balanced approach that
incorporates the advantages of both small and large classes could lead to the most
successful language learning environments.