TRỌN BỘ 20 BÀI LUẬN MẪU BAND 9.0 - TÁC GIẢ DOMINIC COLE
TRỌN BỘ 20 BÀI LUẬN MẪU BAND 9.0 - TÁC GIẢ DOMINIC COLE
In the past lectures were the traditional method of teaching large numbers of students. Nowadays new technology is increasingly being used to teach students.
Do the advantages of this new approach outweigh the disadvantages?
As we move into the twenty-first century, technology is affecting many different areas of life and education is no exception. Indeed, in some institutions traditional forms of education have been revolutionized by new technology to the extent that the lecture is no longer the main method of delivery. While there are a variety of benefits to this new approach, there are also significant drawbacks.
Perhaps the greatest bonus of the introduction of technology is the flexibility it offers. This is evident in two different ways. Firstly, it is now no longer essential for students to be present in the lecture theatre for their courses. This means that part-time courses for adults who are in employment and distance learning courses for people in other countries are now much more practical. Another area of flexibility is of course that the lecturer and tutor are able to use model, interactive whiteboards and other tools to deliver their courses in a more stimulating way to large numbers of students.
Not everything, however, about the introduction of this new technology into education is positive. One major problem is that not all students are comfortable with using technology, even if they are part of the digital native generation. This is a serious issue as they may suffer from their lack of technological skills. Another related issue is that education is a human activity and it works best with as much human interaction as possible. Impersonal technology cannot replace the human contact found in traditional face-to-face tutorials and seminars.
As we have seen, there are major benefits to the introduction of technology into education, not least because it enables modern forms of education such as distance learning courses. This is balanced, however, by the fact that it can be too impersonal for some and disadvantages others for their lack of technological skills.
(305 words – Dominic Cole)
Science and technology have improved the standards of living in all over the world. Some people claim that the role of the arts has become insignificant.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
There is no doubt that the quality of our lives in the 21st century has been greatly improved by various scientific and technological advances. Despite this, the arts and humanities too still have much to teach us about ourselves and life in general.
One area in which we can learn from the arts is that concepts such as beauty matter in and of themselves, whereas in the world of science and technology the only true measure is whether something works or not. This is a limited view of the world and the arts differ in that they offer us an alternative and more spiritual outlook. For example, if we listen to Mozart we can learn about harmony and joy through the medium of music or if even we read an author like PG Wodehouse we learn about the value of humor. These essential aspects of life are absent from the clinical world of science and technology.
The other way in which artists can teach us more about life is that enjoying art encourages the habit of self- reflection. If you walk into an art gallery, attend a concert or even just stay in to read a book, you will almost certainly begin to think about your inner values. For me, this is an invaluable lesson in life because if we begin to reflect about ourselves, we begin not just to become more human, but also consider the lives of others too.
So, while science and technology may have made our physical lives more comfortable in the 21st century. It remains true that the arts and humanities are still absolutely necessary for ordinary people as they promote a more spiritual and reflective view of life that is essential to our humanity.
(289 words – Dominic Cole)
Some people say that parents should decide on what kind of medical care their children should receive, while others believe that this is the state’s responsibility
Discuss both views and give your opinion
Although almost everyone agrees about the necessity to provide children with the best healthcare, there is some dispute about whether parents or the government should decide what that care is. My own view is that while governments may adopt a general policy for children’s medical care, parents should normally have the ultimate say.
There are good grounds for arguing that the state should decide on the form of medical provision for children. One of these is that typically the state is better able to make informed decisions because it has access to all the latest medical research. Another is that occasionally there are epidemics in schools and it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that illnesses should not be spread unnecessarily. In this case, it might justifiably order compulsory vaccination.
Equally there is a very strong argument for allowing parents to decide on what care their children receive. This is because one extremely important principle is that everyone should have the right to choose what care they receive. For children who are too young to make their own choice, it is only natural that their parents should make that decision for them. This is particularly important for families that come from a culture where certain medical interventions such as blood transfusions are forbidden. In this case, it seems quite wrong for the government to order something that may go against religious beliefs.
In conclusion, I do accept that there are good reasons for the state to outline what care children should receive, but parents should be able to have the last word particularly when religious principles are at stake.
(271 words – Dominic Cole)
Differences between countries become less evident each year. Nowadays, all over the world people share the same fashions, advertising, brands, eating habits and TV channels.
Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of this?
It is undoubtedly the case that the world today has become a global village. One of the effects of this is that increasingly people in all corners of the world are exposed to similar services and products and adopt similar habits. My view is that this is largely a beneficial process and in this essay, I will explain why.
The first point to make is that there are some downsides to this process of cultural globalization, but these are relatively minor. The most significant of these disadvantages is that it can weaken national culture and traditions. For example, if people watch films and television programs produced in the United States, sometimes they adopt aspects of the lifestyle of the American characters they see on television. Typically, however, this only affects minor details such as clothing and does not seriously threaten national identity.
When we turn to the other side of the argument, there are two major points to make in favor of this process. The first of these is that the more we share habits, products and services, the better we understand each other and this reduces prejudice against other nations. The other point relates to modernity. It is a sign of progress in a society that people no longer are restricted to brands and advertisements from their own society but are able to access more international goods. If, for example, there were unable to drink Coca Cola or wear Nike, then that would mean their society was not part of the international community.
In conclusion, I understand the point of view of people who worry about cultural globalization because it is a threat to national traditions. However, this is outweighed by its positive impact on international understanding and the fact that it represents progress within a society.
(298 words – Dominic Cole)
Some people think that only staff who worked in a company for a long time should be promoted to a higher position.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
One of the reasons why companies choose to promote some staff is seniority. While length of service is undoubtedly an important factor, my belief is it should certainly not be the only criterion for deciding who should be promoted. Rather it would be better for companies to have a more varied policy in this area.
There are without question sound arguments for promoting employees who have been working for a company for a number of years. The first of these is that these more experienced employees would be able to adapt themselves to being in a higher position, as they would understand the culture and policies of the company better. Again, on a practical level, if they were not promoted, they might well leave the company to find a higher position and earn a larger salary. This could have serious consequences for the company, which might lose a significant amount of business to its competitors.
Despite these reasons, there is a strong argument in favor of also promoting staff because of their performance. This can be seen by how some multi-nationals use annual performance and development reviews when deciding on promotion. Under this system, a supervisor can set targets for an employee and if those targets are met, then the employee can be promoted, even if they are relatively junior. The benefit of this approach is that it encourages staff to work harder and rewards merit and not just long service.
In conclusion, there is no doubt a case for implementing a policy of promoting long-serving members of staff, but I believe that it is also wise to take account of the performance of more junior members of staff.
(279 words – Dominic Cole)
Some people believe that exams are an inappropriate way of measuring students’ performance and should be replaced by continuous assessment.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There is some dispute whether the best method of assessing students is to use examinations or some form of continuous assessment. This is a complex issue and my belief is that there is probably no one method that applies to all educational systems.
There are three major arguments in favor of retaining exams. One is that they provide a clear and objective measure of what students have learned, whereas any form of continuous assessment is probably going to be far more subjective. An additional point is that testing tends to be an excellent way of motivating learners to study harder and to reward the students who do best. Likewise, examinations test the ability of students to work under pressure, and this is a vital life skill for their later careers.
On the other hand, there are still occasions when it can be better to relieve the students of exam pressure and to measure their abilities through continuous assessment. This is particularly the case in lower age groups where young children can be affected negatively by stress and under-perform in exams. It can also be argued that continuous assessment is a more effective way of testing some subjects such as design and technology, which are more creative and less academic. A further point is that often continuous assessment can allow teachers to reward students who work hard, but who may be less able and not do well in more formal testing.
In conclusion, while continuous assessment may be fairer in some contexts, there are still times when traditional exams may be more appropriate. A possible compromise would be to use both forms of testing together, allowing teachers to reward both ability and hard work.
(283 words – Dominic Cole)
In recent years, farming practice has changed to include methods such as factory farming and the use of technology to improve crops. Some people believe these developments are necessary, while others regard them as dangerous and advocate a return to more traditional farming methods.
Discuss both points of view and give your own opinion.
There is some controversy about how farming has been revolutionized in the past decades. While it is possible to claim that the net effect of these changes has been for the benefit of mankind, my view is that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. In this essay, I shall explain my point of view by analyzing both sides of the argument.
There are several reasons why these innovations in agriculture can be said to be positive. One is that the world’s population has exploded within the past century and that traditional methods of agriculture could not provide sufficient food for everyone. It can also be argued that we need more efficient methods of farming because many countries in Asia and Africa suffer regular famine and droughts and the people would starve if it was not for genetically modified crops that are drought resistant. It should also not be forgotten that the quality of life of farmers has been improved by these advances which are less labor intensive.
Those who argue for a return to smaller scale and more organic farming base their arguments on the impact of agriculture on health and the environment. Firstly, it is claimed that a variety of diseases such as BSE, swine flu and bird flu were caused by conditions in factory farms and that organic food is much healthier. Then, there are concerns about the lack of research into how genetically modified crops might affect the ecosystem for the worse.
While there are strong arguments on both sides of the case, my personal belief is that the long-term dangers of these developments mean that we should be extremely cautious. I suggest that there should be more investment in traditional farming methods to make them more efficient and that there should be stronger legislation to ensure that both factory farms and GM crops are safe.
(308 words – Dominic Cole)
Should museums and art galleries be free of charge for the general public, or should a charge, even a voluntary charge, be levied for admittance?
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
One very complex issue in today’s world is the funding of museums and art galleries. While there is an argument that they should be free to the general public and funded by governments, I also believe that there is also a case for saying that they should charge an entrance fee like other attractions.
Those who argue that museums should be free typically make one of two arguments. The first argument is that institutions like museums are a public service and therefore there should be free access to the man in the street. If, for example, there was a charge only the wealthy could afford to enjoy works of art. The second, and related, argument is that if they did levy a charge fewer people would go to museums. This would be serious as they are educational institutions and standards would fall.
In contrast, there is only one major argument on the other side of the debate. This is that both museums and art galleries need to charge an entrance fee if they are to survive in the modern world. Governments do not have sufficient funds to subsidize all such institutions and there are other priorities for public money. Therefore, these galleries and museums need to charge their customers not only to survive but to update their exhibitions and make new purchases. By way of illustration, the Tate Modern in London could not have been founded without revenue from admissions.
My personal position is that there is no clear answer to this question as there are such strong arguments on both sides. Perhaps it is possible for some museums and galleries to charge fees and for others not to. It will depend on the situation of the individual museum or gallery.
(291 words – Dominic Cole)
The best way to solve the world’s environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuel. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Most people would accept that one of the highest priorities today is to find a solution to the various environmental problems facing mankind. It has been suggested that best way to achieve this is for governments to raise the price of fuel. I am, however, not sure that this is necessarily the case.
One reason why this approach may not work is that there is not just one environmental problem the world faces today. If governments did make fuel more expensive, it might well help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we produce and so slow down the rate of global warming and air pollution. However, it would not help with other major problems such as intensive farming, overpopulation, the hole in the ozone layer or water pollution. For these problems, we need to find other solutions.
A second reason why this policy may not be the most appropriate is that it places the emphasis on governmental policy and not individual responsibility. Ultimately, most environmental problems are the result of the way we as individuals live our lives. If we wish to find a long-term and lasting solution to them, we need to learn to live in a way that it is greener or kinder to the environment. What governments need to do to make this happen is to ensure there is a global program to educate people of all ages about the environmental consequences to their actions.
In summary, I believe that increasing the level of taxation on fuel is at best a short-term solution to only one environmental problem. If we wish to provide a home for our children’s children, education is likely to be the key to making this happen.
(283 words – Dominic Cole)
Some people prefer to live in a house, while others think that there are more advantages living in an apartment.
Are there more advantages than disadvantages to living in a house rather than in an apartment?
Many people nowadays face a difficult decision when they buy their own home. The question is whether they should buy a house or an apartment. There would seem to be clear benefits and drawbacks to both options.
Perhaps the major advantage of living in a house is the issue of privacy. Typically, there is more opportunity for peace and quiet, if you live in a house. This is particularly the case if it is a detached house. Other significant advantages are that houses are generally more spacious and on the whole, have gardens. This is especially important if there is a family so that the children can have a safe environment to play in. If, however, you live in a tower block, then the children may have to play outside on the pavement.
There are, of course, negative aspects to living in houses. The greatest of these is that they tend to be more expensive to purchase and to maintain. Indeed, a large majority of people choose to live in apartments because they cannot afford the mortgage to buy a house. Another possible problem is that there are fewer houses in cities than the countryside. So, if you like urban life, it may be preferable to live in an apartment. A second reason to avoid living in a house is that there is a greater sense of community to life in an apartment.
My conclusion would be that this is a well-balanced issue. There are probably an equal number of pros and cons to making either choice. Ultimately, whether you decide to live in a cottage in the countryside or a duplex in the city depends on your own personality, family and financial circumstances.
(284 words – Dominic Cole)
Many people want their country to host an international sporting event. Others believe that international sporting events bring more problems than benefits.
Discuss both views and state your opinion.
There is frequently great competition to host international sporting events. Not everyone, however, believes that the price involved in hosting such events is worthwhile. For me, this is an understandable point of view and perhaps not every country should try and stage international sporting events.
The major argument against hosting international sporting events is financial. Typically, it can cost several million pounds to build the arenas and modernize the infrastructure so that it can cater for the athletes and the spectators. This money, it is argued, would be better spent on welfare and education programs that provide direct support for the population. Indeed, some governments have incurred so much debt through hosting the Olympic Games that they have had to reduce spending on other social programs.
While there is some merit in that argument, hosting sporting events does also bring significant benefits. First among these is the honor and prestige it brings to the host country because that country will be the center of the sporting world for the duration of the event. For many people this is beyond any price. More than that, if the authorities plan carefully, they can use the occasion of the sporting event to help finance public works that benefit the whole population in the long term. For example, the village for the athletes can be transformed into public housing and the various stadia can be used to build a sporting legacy for future generations.
My own view is that it is an honor for a country to host a major sporting event. However, if a government wishes to bid for an international event to be staged in its country, it should ensure it has sufficient funds to maintain spending on other projects.
(288 words – Dominic Cole)
Space exploration requires vast sums of money.
Is the amount of money spent on space research justifiable? Could the money be better spent?
There has always been considerable discussion about whether governments should spend tax payers’ money on space research. In my view, it is impossible to justify the amount of money spent on such projects. Generally speaking, the main reason for this position is that there are several areas in which the money could be invested better.
The first point to make is that politicians have a responsibility to spend public money on projects that bring a benefit to the general public. This has not been the case with space research as most developments have been limited to helping astronauts in space or have been much specialized. For example, it is not of great value to the general public that we now have pens and biros that can write upside down. This does not merit the huge amount of money spent.
The second point to make is that there are many much more urgent projects on Earth that require investment. If governments spent less money on space research, then they would be able to help solve some of these problems such as population control, elimination of diseases like cholera, global warming and food shortages. It seems to me that all of these issues are more important because they affect the lives of millions of ordinary people. An illustration of this is that the US government could provide food for all the starving people in the world if they did not spend so much on NASA.
My conclusion is that politicians should not fund space research. The grounds for saying this are that it is very costly and provides few real benefits. Furthermore, there are several more urgent issues that need to be funded.
(281 words – Dominic Cole)
Unemployment is one of the most serious problems facing developed nations today.
What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of reducing the working week to thirty-five hours?
It is unquestionable that rising unemployment is one of the most pressing issues in the industrial world. One solution that has been put forward is to cut the working week to a maximum of 35 hours. However, in my view this solution is rather controversial and other solutions need to be found.
It is fairly easy to understand the reasons why this proposal has been made. The reasoning is that if workers are not allowed to work for more than 35 hours weekly, then employers will be forced to engage more staff. There would be at least two advantages to this. Not only would unemployment be reduced, but the working conditions of employees on very long shifts would also be significantly improved. For example, a factory employing 300 manual workers doing 10 hours a day might employ 450 workers.
There is also, however, a strong argument not to implement this proposal. This argument is based on economic competitiveness. If a company was forced to employ more workers to produce the same amount of goods, then its wage bill would rise and its products might become more expensive and less competitive compared to companies with longer working weeks. In this case, it is possible that the company either might become insolvent or it would have to make some employees redundant. As a result, the intended benefit to the personnel would not happen.
In summary, we can see that this is clearly a complex issue as there are significant advantages and disadvantages to the proposal. My own personal view is that it would be better not to introduce the shortened working week because it works only in theory and not in practice.
(280 words – Dominic Cole)
It is sometimes said that a high salary is the most important factor in choosing a job. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is, of course, important for people to earn a sufficiently high salary to support their lifestyle. This does not mean, however, that the salary is the only point to be taken into consideration when choosing a job. Indeed, I would argue that there are a number of other factors that are equally significant.
The first point to consider is why it may be a mistake to place too much emphasis on the salary. One reason why this is so is that you may select a job that is well-paid but ultimately unsatisfying. In this case, you may spend 8 hours a day being unhappy. Something else to be taken into account is that highly-paid jobs tend to be stressful and involve long working hours. For instance, many doctors have a 60-hour working week and they often suffer from burn out early in their careers and wish they had chosen a less stressful profession.
The other point to be taken into account is how other factors may matter more than the salary when deciding on a job. Indeed, most people would accept that the work environment is key to job satisfaction. If you are working alongside people you like and the atmosphere in the office is positive, you are much more likely to be satisfied in your work. Likewise, it is also critical that you actually enjoy what you do. For example, someone who is artistic is much more likely to be happy working for a low salary teaching art than earning a fortune as a merchant banker.
In conclusion, I would say that the salary should be only one consideration in choosing a job and that other factors such as job satisfaction and work environment are just as important.
(291 words – Dominic Cole)
Subjects such as Art, Sport and Music are being dropped from the school curriculum for subjects such as Information Technology. Many people children suffer as a result of these changes.
To what extent would you support or reject the idea of moving these subjects from school curriculum?
In recent times, there has been much debate about which subjects should be included on the school curriculum. One particular issue is whether the introduction of more modern subjects such as IT for more traditional subjects such as art and music disadvantages the pupils. I believe that this is a difficult question and different solutions need to be found for primary and secondary schools.
There is one major argument in favor of replacing art, music and sport on the curriculum with subjects like IT. This is that the purpose of school is to prepare children for their working life after school, so the subjects on the curriculum should be relevant to their potential careers. From this point of view, IT is much relevant to schoolchildren as they need to be computer literate if they want to survive in the workplace. For example, it is easy to see that word processing and programming skills will impress employers more than the ability to run fast or draw well.
There are also, however, strong arguments for retaining the more traditional subjects as part of the curriculum. One significant counter-argument is that the purpose of education is not just to prepare children for later careers, but also to develop their all-round “culture”. It is important that children leave school with some knowledge of art, music and sport as all these are all help develop aspects of young people’s personalities.
My own personal point of view is that there is merit in both sides of the debate and that all children should study some IT, art music and sport at least at primary school. At secondary school, however, children should be offered a choice between these subjects so that they can continue to study them if they wish.
Nowadays the way many people interact with each other has changed because of technology.
In what ways has technology affected personal relationships? Has this become a positive or negative development?
Advances in technology have without doubt influenced the way we communicate with each other in a number of different ways. While some of this change can have a negative influence on the way we interact, my view is that overall modern technology typically improves communication in personal relationships.
It is clear that technology has changed the way we communicate in several respects. Perhaps the clearest example of this is that nowadays many people prefer to keep in touch to their friends and relatives using applications and social networking sites like FaceTime, Skype and Facebook. Another way this change is evident is how the email and texting have almost completely replaced the letter as the primary form of written communication. Because these modern forms of communication are typically much more convenient and instant, one result is that we can communicate more easily with people who we do not see on a daily basis.
I would argue that these innovations have mostly improved personal relationships. The principal benefit is that it just so much easier to stay in touch with people we might otherwise lose contact with. It is for example now very straightforward to keep in contact with friends from university who move to different cities after they graduate and this means relationships last longer. The only real drawback is that sometimes people become so addicted to their online social networks that they stop communicating with friends in the real world. That, however, is a minor issue.
My conclusion is therefore that new forms technological communication has in fact largely improved human interaction because emails, texting and social networks enable us to maintain friendships which might otherwise be lost.
(278 words – Dominic Cole)
Television has had a significant influence on the culture of many societies.
To what extent would you say that television has positively or negatively affected the cultural development of your society?
It is unarguable that television has had a considerable impact and changed the world in which we live. However, there is debate whether that change has been for the better or the worse, when we consider cultural development. While there are certainly strong feelings on both sides of the argument in Western Europe, my own view is that television has had a largely positive influence on our society.
There are, however, several reasons why it can be argued that television has a negative effect on cultural development. Perhaps the principle argument is the lowbrow nature of many programs, particularly sitcoms and soap operas. People who watch these programs do not learn anything, they are simply entertained. The other major argument is that because people watch so much television, they no longer take part in more traditional forms of cultural entertainment. An example here is how traditional dancing and music is becoming much less popular because people are staying at home to watch the television.
On the other hand, there are a variety of ways in which cultural development has been assisted by television. Here the major argument is that television has allowed the whole of society access to cultural entertainment. For example, in the nineteenth century only a small proportion of people could go to the ballet or the theatre. However, it is now possible for everyone to enjoy these on television. A second positive effect is that on television we can learn more about other cultures and societies because there are so many interesting documentaries about other countries.
My personal conclusion is that television is a largely positive influence. However, it is important that we do not watch it too much and that we watch the right sort of program. If we watch the wrong sort of program and watch too much television, we may become couch potatoes.
(309 words – Dominic Cole)
In many countries people working in sport and entertainment earn much more money than professionals like doctors, nurses and teachers.
Why do you think this happens in some societies and do you consider it is good or bad?
It is undoubtedly true that there is often a major imbalance between the salaries of the professional classes and celebrities from the worlds of sport and entertainment. At first sight, this seems unjust, but on closer analysis it is easy to understand why it happens and see that it is almost inevitable.
It does often seem wrong that certain people should earn so much money when their only talent is to entertain. While giving pleasure is important, people in the medical and educational professions have far more important roles in society. For example, a surgeon can save your life in the operating theatre and a teacher can prepare you for your career. Indeed, because both doctors and teachers are so vital to any society, it would seem only right that they receive the largest financial rewards.
When, however, we look to see who earns the most, we discover that it is typically sports and entertainment personalities. There are a variety of reasons why this should be. Firstly, we live in the age of mass media: these people earn so much because they are national or even global stars and get rewarded through endorsements and other sources of income. Secondly, these stars are unique in a way doctors and teachers are not, often they can do what no one else can. Finally, sometimes these stars may have short careers in comparison with other professions. For instance, while doctors can work until they are 65, footballers normally retire in their early 30s.
I personally believe that in the ideal world someone’s income would relate to their value to society. However, in the modern world, it is almost unavoidable the famous will have the highest incomes because of their media exposure.
(288 words - Dominic Cole)
Consumers are faced with increasing numbers of advertisements from competing companies.
To what extent do you think are consumers influenced by advertisements? What measures can be taken to protect them?
In today’s material world, we are inundated with various forms of advertising. In my view, this can be dangerous as it encourages us to spend without thinking and young people, in particular, need some protection from it.
The first point to make is that advertising does make us spend money we do not need to. There are nowadays so many different ways companies promote their products and services, ranging from television commercials to simple flyers that we cannot escape it. If, for example, you watch a football match on television, you will see the logos of the tournament sponsors. Likewise, if you watch the latest blockbuster movie, very probably you will see a product placed in the film by some advertising agency. The volume of this advertising means that we, as consumers, tend to be profoundly influenced by it and buy without thinking.
It is not easy to decide how to regulate advertising. Clearly, governments ought to restrict advertisements for harmful products such as alcohol and tobacco. They do not have the power, however, to control other forms of advertising. This means we need to use our common sense when we go to the shops, and ask ourselves whether we really need to make that purchase. Parents should, however, ensure that young people are protected from too much exposure to advertising. This can mean simply explaining that it is not in fact necessary to buy the newest Xbox, or simply turning the television off.
My conclusion is that while we cannot escape advertising or its effects in the modern world, children should be encouraged not to pay too much attention to it.
(272 words – Dominic Cole)
In cities and towns all over the world the high volume of traffic is a problem. What are the causes of this and what actions can be taken to solve this problem?
It is undoubtedly the case that urban areas around the world increasingly suffer from congestion. In this essay, I examine the reasons for this trend and suggest some practical policies the authorities could implement to reduce the level of traffic in our cities.
The first step is to understand why traffic has increased in towns and cities. Broadly speaking, there are three main reasons for this. One is that cars have become more affordable for the average consumer and they are no longer a luxury item, but something that most families expect to own. A second reason is that public transport has become increasingly unreliable in recent years, not least because many bus and train services have been reduced because of the difficulty in funding them. The third reason is that society has in general become more mobile and this means more people are prepared to commute to work by car than they were before.
There is almost certainly no one solution to this problem given the complexity of its causes. However, one option has to be to improve the reliability of public transport to encourage people to take the bus or the train rather than get in the car. It would also be possible to discourage people from driving to work by introducing special tariffs for using the roads, especially during peak periods. A successful example of this is the congestion charge scheme in London which has certainly reduced the level of traffic in inner-city areas.
In conclusion, there are a variety of different factors that have led to rising levels of traffic in urban areas. While it may not be possible to find a complete solution, any action should probably involve encouraging greater use of public transport and making it more expensive for the motorist to drive in urban areas.
(302 words – Dominic Cole)