Аноним (IELTS_gr) все записи автора Some people think that only staff who worked in a company for a long time should be promoted to a higher position. What’s your opinion?



Who should be promoted and why? This question is a hot and controversial issue in all companies. Some people say that only highly experienced workers who have given the company more than ten years can be promoted. However others argue that this kind of selection will greatly damage labour productivity of the company.
The longer you work the more skilled and educated you become in this sphere. You know what is best for your company and how to make a bigger profit. But the problem is that you are so used to the working routine that usually suggest the same old ideas and think in stereotypes. In order to remain competitive, any company needs young specialists full with enthusiasm and ambitions. Due to fresh look they are able to find new approaches and ways to solve old problems. That is their main advantage which equals both sides: old professional workers and young specialists.
To my mind no matter how long a person worked but if he does not have leadership qualities he cannot manage the company and people. Leadership deals with personality. It is like a talent which you get since your birth. So even a young person if he has this quality and proper education can be promoted despite his age and experience.
On the basis of these reasons I strongly believe that the people who possess necessary qualities should be promoted not taking into consideration low long they worked in the company.

Аноним (IELTS_gr) все записи автора Most education systems rely on examinations to encourage children to study, but as a result children suffer from too much stress and they never learn to be creative. Therefore examinations should be abolished. Do you agree?


Children as well as their parents experience extremely strong pressure during examinations. It causes many arguments among psychiatrists, teachers and other interested in this issue people. Some of them suggest abolishing exams that is to my mind a very unreasonable decision.
These days good education is considered as the first step to well-being and prosperity. Although children are aware of this fact they do not make more efforts to succeed at school as there are other more exciting entertainments which strongly attract them. No matter how important education is children would prefer spending time on other activities. In this case examinations function as a monitoring system which is necessary not for teachers or parents but for children. With the help of it students are able to control their progress in studying. Abolition of examinations will probably lead to unserious attitude in gaining knowledge and then future job.
Much is said about creativity particularly that the latter is completely ignored. I think that the problem is not in having examinations but in teaching. This area should be creative itself and teach students to be during classes.
In conclusion I can say that I disagree with the idea of abolishing examinations at least until new ways of stimulating children to study are found.

Аноним (IELTS_gr) все записи автора Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Classmates are a more important influence than parents on a child’s success in school. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.


Nowadays as never before parents make great efforts and spend plenty of money on their children’s education. Unfortunately all the attempts are useless if friends have a bad influence on them.
In early childhood parents are the most essential beings for children. Unlike most animals human’s babies are born defenseless and extremely vulnerable. It takes them many years to get stronger and live independent from parents. However, this fact does not prevent children especially teenagers to show disrespect to those who love and cherish them. There is a surprising modern tendency. The more people take care of their children the worse they grow up. Probably there is a very slight edge between caring and spoiling, and the distinction is in appropriate and right upbringing. If parents are afraid of bad influence which can be applied to their offsprings they should pay more attention in teaching children to have and defend their principles.
Infants get older, their thinking undergoes dramatic changes and they find new idols to worship. Now parents do not enjoy the former authority, children prefer spending free time with friends and classmates whose opinion in most cases prevail over others. Problems appear when classmates’ values do not coincide with parents’ ones. For instance, parents want their teen daughter to study French but she has no desire to do it as her friends consider studying as unnecessary waste of time. In this situation everything depends on child’s personality and his upbringing. But the choice is difficult and stressful no matter what the child finally chooses.
Parents know what is best for their children and they are ready to do their best to help them get it. But children virtually depend on friends’ opinion and that is why are not always able to realize what they actually want and consequently cannot make right decisions.

Аноним (IELTS_gr) все записи автора News editors decide what to broadcast on television and what to print in
newspapers. What factors do you think influence these decisions? Do we
become used to bad news? Would it be better if more good news was
reported?



It is generally agreed that media is the fourth branch of power. Its main aim is to report different events happening in the world in the way that people can form their attitude on this matter. However it should not be forgotten that television and publishing houses are the sort of business naturally longing for getting a good profit. This desire often decides what programs and articles will be broadcast or printed.
Nowadays everything depends on high ratings and subscribers. Unfortunately this is the main factor in selecting news for release. The more sensational and shocking the event the more people it can attract. There is a direct connection between the amount of viewers and readers and the profit. The issue of extremely often broadcasting violent news is widely discussed.
Parents and teachers are worried about the probability of committing crime by children and teenagers after watching television. Many other people are afraid of going out. These are examples of the consequences of broadcasting bad news. I believe that reports about good also can become sensational and produce an interest.
The information we get every day first is carefully analyzed on its ability to arouse interest among audience. According to editor’s mind the more horrible the news the more interesting it is. I completely disagree with this statement as I think that nowadays what we need is to see something good.

let's get ready for this fucking test