In recent years, many small local shops have closed because customers travel to large shopping centres or malls to do their shopping. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

295 words, band 8.0+
3. Many of the products we buy nowadays break or wear out very quickly?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of this for manufacturers and the public?

In the past, products sold in markets used to be much more durable. However, these days, this is not the case with many of the items people purchase. While it is true that the trend towards producing and consuming goods that do not last long offers some benefits for both producers and the society, to my mind, this change has brought more drawbacks.

There are clear advantages to manufacturing and purchasing products whose lifespan is short. These products require cheap raw materials, thus reducing production costs significantly. Because of this, many producers now have higher profit margins. Society also benefits from the affordability of many products resulting from the trend in question. Cheaper products mean more people can now afford things that used to be beyond their budget. However, the main benefits of this trend appear to be short term.
On the other hand, these kinds of products bring their problems. A uniform or a household appliance that lasts only three months before fading or breaking often costs half as much as the one whose lifetime well exceeds 3 years. Thus, those who purchase these goods tend to overspend on replacements in the long run. For manufacturers, the consequence is often the loss of their reputation. This is because brand recognition is in turn linked to the durability of their products.
Therefore, in the long-term short-lived products is often for both companies and consumers.

On balance, although there are obvious benefits to the growth in non-durable products, there are also enormous problems in the long term. Thus, it would be in everyone’s best interest, if we returned to production and consumption of durable goods.

band 8.0+, 274 words.


4. Some educators believe that international school exchange visits are important for teenage children. To what extent do you agree or disagree?


Many teachers argue that exchanging secondary and high school students with schools abroad plays an essential part in their development. While it is true that these international exchange programs are not without troubles for teenagers, in my view, they do more good than harm to students concerned.



On the one hand, the problems that come with overseas exchange programs are many. Firstly, when teenagers start living and studying abroad, they face culture shock. That is to say, they may have difficulty adjusting to new cultural norms, food, and the way of life in the host country. Another problem resulting from these exchange programs is that many teenagers feel homesick as they have never lived away from their parents and siblings. In other words, they may miss their parents, home and siblings and the support they get from them all the time. Nevertheless, teenagers usually recover from this in about a month.






On the other hand, I believe that sending students aged 13-19 to study abroad is beneficial in many ways. The number-one reason why these programs are important is that they provide an opportunity to practice their second language skills. Research shows youngsters learn English faster when they live in the UK. In addition, teenagers usually broaden their outlook by taking part in these programs. This is because they are often exposed to different ideas and traditions, which can result in them thinking differently.

Thus, to get these benefits, teenagers should be allowed to go abroad on exchange programs.



To sum up, despite difficulties, such as becoming shocked by a new culture and missing home, I feel that these exchange visits have more positive influences on teenagers' development. Therefore, the government should finance this kind of programs more often.