剑桥雅思9_作文

Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages？

Traditionally, children have begun studying foreign languages at secondary school, but introducing them earlier is recommended by some educationalists. This policy has been adopted by some educational authorities or individual schools， with both positive and negative outcomes.

The obvious argument in its favour is that young children pick up languages much more easily than teenagers. Their brains are still programmed to acquire their mother tongue, which facilitates learning another language, and unlike adolescents， they are not inhibited by self—consciousness.

The greater flexibility of the primary timetable allows for more frequent， shorter sessions and for a play—centred approach, thus maintaining learners’ enthusiasm and progress。 Their command of the language in later life will benefit from this early exposure， while learning other languages subsequently will be easier for them. They may also gain a better understanding of other cultures。

There are, however， some disadvantages。 Primary school teachers are generalists, and may not have the necessary language skills themselves. If specialists have to be brought in to deliver these sessions, the flexibility referred to above is diminished。 If primary language teaching is not standardised， secondary schools could be faced with a great variety of levels in different languages within their intake, resulting in a classroom experience which undoes the earlier gains. There is no advantage if enthusiastic primary pupils become demotivated as soon as they change schools。 However, these issues can be addressed strategically within the policy adopted.

Anything which encourages language learning benefits society culturally and economically, and early exposure to language learning contributes to this。 Young children’s innate abilities should be harnessed to make these benefits more achievable.

TEST 3: Some people say that the best way to improve public health is by increasing the number of sports facilities。 Others， however, say that this would hav little effect on public health and that other measures are required。

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. 1.

A problem of modern societies is the declining level of health in the

general population， with conflicting views on how to tackle this worrying trend.

One possible solution is to provide more sports facilities to encourage a more active lifestyle。 Advocates of this believe that today’s sedentary lifestyle and stressful working conditions mean that physical activity is no longer part of either our work or our leisure time. If there were easy-to-reach local sports centres， we would be more likely to make exercise a regular part of our lives， rather than just collapsing in front of a screen every evening。 The variety of sports that could be offered would cater for all ages， levels of fitness and interests: those with painful memories of PE at school might be happier in the swimming pool than on the football pitch.

However， there may be better ways of tackling this problem。 Interest in sport is not universal, and additional facilities might simply attract the already fit， not those who most need them. Physical activity could be encouraged relatively cheaply， for example by installing exercise equipment in parks, as my local council has done. This has the added benefit that parents and children often use them together just for fun， which develops a positive attitude to exercise at an early age.

As well as physical activity, high tax penalties could be imposed on high-fat food products， tobacco and alcohol, as excessive consumption of any of these contributes to poor health. Even improving public transport would help: it takes longer to walk to the bus stop than to the car。

In my opinion, focusing on sports facilities is too narrow an approach and would not have the desired results. People should be encouraged not only to be more physically active but also to adopt a healthier lifestyle in general。

2. Nowadays how to improve public heath is a hot topic in society. Some people say that the best way to improve public health is by increasing the number of sports facilities. That’s a good idea. The life lies in the movement. If more there were more sports facilities which easy to reach are built, it will increase possibility that people do some sports， so that public health is improved。

For example in our town， there was no sports facility before， in oue our free time， only a few residents go were going for a to walk after work。 Most of them watched TV or played computer at home。 But after that supervisor of community decided to build some sports facilities for residents。

Henforce Now We can do something new rather than stay at home. That’s the advantage.

However， some people say that: this would have little effect on public health and that other measure is required。

For some people, they don't like doing sport。 Those sports facilities are no meaning for them。 But on the other hand, everyone eats everyday; why not concentrate on the quality of the food. The reason is that some fake food emerges on the market, because of people’s greed.

More and more chemstrical chemical substances are used for food。 And it leads to many strange diseases。 Thus we have to supervise it strictly so that people eat health food. There are even more ways to improve public health， such as limitation of tobaccos, make a difference for environment, better for hospital system and so on。

In my opinion， it’s not a the best way， however it is a good way to improve public health is by increasing the number of sports facilities, there are also the other positive measures. We should depend on local situation, and then make the suitable plan. Our goal devotes to improve public health。