Đề thi IELTS Writing Task 2 ngày 24/09/2016
Fossil fuel is the main source of energy. In some countries, the use of alternative sources of energy is encouraged.
To what extent do you think is it a positive or negative development?
There is little room for doubt that fossil fuels are the major energy source in various regions of the world, but some nations are taking a step forward and using renewable sources like wind, solar and tidal energy. Definitely,it is a positive development.
The main advantage of using alternative sources is that the conventional sources like coal and oil are non-renewable. They take millions of years to form and we are consuming them at an alarming rate. This means that if we use up the existing resources they will be gone forever as far as our and the coming many generations are concerned. Energy from the wind, the sun and the sea is an everlasting source of power. So, more and more governments should come forward in promoting these sources.
Another big advantage of these non-conventional sources is that they do not pollute the environment. We all know that global warming and damage to the protective ozone layer are caused by carbon-dioxide and other by- products of fossil fuels. If urgent steps are not taken towards the use of natural sources like sun and wind, then the time is not far when the whole earth will transform into a boiling pot.
Although the use of these alternative sources has some hurdles such as the initial cost of setting up solar panels and wind farms is very high and these are also dependent on the geographical locations. However, once the initial cost has been met with, their maintenance is practically negligible.
In conclusion, I believe that, the use of these alternative sources is a very positive development. It should be the global priority to invest in such research and development.
Governments across continents have turned their attention to more sustainable sources of energy as alternatives to fossil fuel. In my opinion, this could be seen as a progress for the following reasons.
First, there is no arguing that producing energy from buried dead organisms lacks sustainability, which means such production could not guarantee the survival of humans in the long term. In fact, the consumption of energy generated from fossil fuel tends to accelerate in direct correlation with the growth of the world population. With the current rate of exploitation, this valuable resource would dwindle away in no time, leaving no other choices than seeking additional reserves such as nuclear power or hydroelectricity. This is a safe solution to the fear of energy scarcity and ensures the future development of the human race.
Second, dependence on fossil fuel for worldwide energy supply would cause environmental degradation while using solar power, for example, is considered an ultimate choice of energy conservation. The combustion of fossil fuels is the culprit of greenhouse gas emission and other air pollutants, leading to tremendous damage to the environment. Such suffering of the Earth could not be justified by the growing need of humans. By contrast, this would never be the case when it comes to other alternatives as mentioned above. If governments continue to invest in exploiting those new sources, there will be an unlimited amount of inexpensive energy on the long run.
In conclusion, I believe that the use of other potential energy sources to replace fossil fuel is obviously an important step forward.
With the convenience of being able to translate languages on lots of devices these days, there are positives and negatives to this topic. However, I contend that it had more advantages than disadvantages.
On one hand, having computers and portable devices is a major advantage as one is able to translate languages instantaneously through these gadgets. The convenience of being able to interpret a different language on the spot negates the need for looking for words in a multilingual dictionary. For instance, Android interface mobile phones these days such as Samsung devices provide users the ability to utilise applications like Google Translate that is able to translate texts to over 100 languages immediately. Hence, on-the-spot translations that are available on electronic devices are extremely beneficial.
On the other hand, machinery is not able to convey the tone of certain languages that a person can, and is therefore a disadvantage. Languages with a wide range of tonal variations such as Mandarin or Cantonese are complex to grasp just by translations on computers or phones. For instance, there are six different tones in Cantonese, the nuances in how to speak it properly would be lacking just by learning the language through electronic devices as opposed to relying on a teacher. Therefore, language translations on devices can be seen as a disadvantage as they cannot capture different tones.
I truly believe that the pros of interpreting different languages on electronic devices outweigh the cons as it is extremely convenient. Using these applications to quickly translate languages especially when one is travelling abroad is very easy and fast just from a click of a button. Due to this convenience, the advantages override the disadvantages.
In conclusion, whilst there are benefits and drawbacks of using mobile phones or computers to translate different languages, the points mentioned above highlight that there are more positives than negatives.