[SAMPLE WRITING] GIẢI ĐỀ THI THẬT WRITING TASK 2 NGÀY 28/11/2020 – BAND 7.0+

Chế độ ăn uống không lành mạnh khiến ngày càng nhiều người mắc các bệnh liên quan đến cân nặng và đường tiêu hóa, gây ra những biến chứng nguy hiểm. Cũng vì nguyên nhân này, nhiều người mong muốn chính phủ sẽ tham gia vào việc kiểm soát thói quen ăn uống của người dân. Nhưng liệu đây có phải là ý kiến hợp lý khi mỗi công dân đều có quyền tự do cá nhân của mình?

Cùng IPP đến với bài chia sẻ của mentor dưới đây và xem bạn ấy đã diễn đạt thế nào để đạt band 7.0+ trong phòng thi nhé!

Đề bài: The government should make laws about people’s nutrition and food choice. Others argue that is their choice. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Bài mẫu:

As living standards rise, a lifestyle-related issue has stood out as a bone of contention: whether nutrition and food should be subject to governmental laws or personal choices only. This essay will first elaborate on both sides of the matter before I give my final verdict on it.

According to proponents of governmental legislations, food regulations from the authority can act as an effective guideline towards a universal healthy lifestyle for its citizens. Having an expert team in nutrition and food, the government can easily devise a comprehensive set of diet rules that clearly specify the necessary nutrients and ingredients required for divergent age brackets and purposes. The health benefit of governmental food laws also lies in the constraint of dangerous illnesses, many of which stem from inappropriate food consumption such as liver failure and digestive disorders. To exemplify, in Vietnam, as the government always yearns to improve the population’s average height, it can enforce laws requiring children and their parents to eat height-boosting foods and drinks in daily meals so that in the future, inferiority complex about height is no longer the case for Vietnamese citizens.

However, those in support of freedom of choice also have their own grounds, citing that food and nutrition should be a personal issue only. It is because individuals’ tastes and preferences vary distinctly from person to person, which makes it virtually impossible to enact the most judicious food regulations for everyone. It is also noteworthy that food demand should not just be investigated through purely scientific spectacles because it is also a matter of spontaneity. In such cases, restriction of food choices would be equivalent to deprivation of personal liberty and gratification. For instance, albeit frequently associated with an unenviable reputation among nutrition specialists, fast food with appropriate intake is still harmless and enjoyable at the same time to the youth. Therefore, following expert advice to restrict or even ban fast food may create a resentful mentality among these groups of people who take a particular liking to this type of meal.

All things considered, although the government’s food and nutrition regulations may lead to a brighter health scenario for all citizens, it acutely infringes one’s freedom of choice and potentially evokes undesirable attitudes among different people with different nutritional wants and needs. Therefore, I would reiterate that food should only be a matter of personal choice. The extent of governmental intervention should be confined to the role of just a credible nutritional consultant for the public.

– 414 words, written by Mentor from IPP ACA Team –

Từ vựng và collocations hay đã dùng:

– a bone of contention (n): một vấn đề gây tranh cãi

– subject to (adj): phụ thuộc vào

– give one’s final verdict on: đưa ra ý kiến cuối cùng

– devise (v): nghĩ ra, soạn ra

– age bracket (n): nhóm tuổi

– digestive disorder (n): rối loạn tiêu hoá

– height-boosting (adj): có tác dụng tăng chiều cao

– inferiority complex (n): cảm xúc tự ti

– judicious (adj): phù hợp

– through scientific spectacles: từ lăng kính, góc nhìn khoa học