Writing Material

Made by

1. Writing source

Although the computer's ability to translate is remarkable, its abilities do yet reach our expectations.

In the case of languages whose stems are totally different, computers have more difficulty translating
from one language to another language.

Countless people would like to print out materials acquired from the Internet. This implies that
printed materials are easier or more comfortable to read than a computer screen.

The Korean Ministry of Education has attempted to initiate e-books, which implies that this
innovation may have potential compared to traditional books.

Throughout time, animals have been close to human beings.

Animals have been sources of food and clothing. Before the advent of today's remarkable textile and
food industries, channels for food and clothing were scarce.

Racial consciousness can be higher when schools are segregated.

Students in segregated schools show a tendency to consider their culture as the best.

Students uneasy emotions can lead to unsettled actions.

Teachers and parents working together can be one of the best methods to help students in trouble.

It allows us to gain new experiences.

Students can advance their knowledge and expand their horizons by being exposured to new cultures
abroad.

Lingua franca has occurred throughout the world.

Speaking the English language has caused the world's cultures to draw closer together.

Because English has been considered dramatically important, people today pay less attention to
being educated in their mother tongue.

Often, children or youth are unprotected while their parents are working.

The computer contributes to an increase in youth crime.

When it comes to raising children, the quality of education should surpass the quantity of education.

Furthermore, the government needs to become involved in reducing youth crime rates.

Parents should at least give a phone even though they are living hectic lives.

In English-speaking countries, we are exposed to the English language in our daily lives.

Hybrid buses, which are fuel efficient, are now available.

If the elderly live in clubs, they will not be a burden to their sons and daughters.

A club for elderly men can give them to have opportunities make friends with their peers and thus
lead to greater enjoyment in life.

Today's technology is developing quickly. It is demanding for people to keep track of the changes.

In Korea, retirement comes earlier in a persons life than in the past.

Animals have long been used in medical experiments. These experiments have expanded our
horizons in science.

In the hospital, electromagnetic waves negatively influence surgeries..

Mobile phones are not permitted in the hospital.

If radio waves are not detrimental to surgeries conducted in the hospital, the use of mobiles phones
can be more beneficial than a beeper.

Over time, the arts have provided us with a lot of pleasure.

Science cannot replace the arts because science cannot express deep and delicate emotions and
thoughts that the arts can reveal.

After retirement, the elderly may suffer from financial problems. If these problems are severe, the
government should subsidize their living. In this case, people must pay more taxes.

The balance of the National Pension in Korea may collapse.

The advent of aerial technology has allowed us to travel to other places more quickly.

If planes were not available, how could we travel to other countries? Further, the world economy and
politics would be paralyzed.

In urban areas, security measures have a positive impact on reducing crime rates.

Security measures can violate peoples privacy and rights.

Machines have already replaced many things that humans used to do.

Teachers primary role is to equip students with knowledge.

Who will teach students the difference between right and wrong? When it comes to religion, many
believe teachers should take a neutral attitude..

In the case of drugs, rape, deceit, and other ills, teachers must instill fear of such perils.

Is there a vehicle that can replace airplanes?

In the long run, airplanes may be replaced by other vehicles that are more fuel-efficient.

What will happen if we limit the use of airplanes?

The increased the cost of fuel will be a burden to us.

Elderly people have difficulties keeping track of todays fast-changing technology.

Young people are less likely to know how to behave toward elderly people.

Students can make a lot of friends in school.

Parents can be considered the best teachers.

Edison and the Wright brothers have dramatically advanced science. The former invented television
and the latter invented airplanes. Their inventions have allowed us to experience other worlds.

Countless researchers and medical doctors have worked to find the keys to incurable diseases.

Some people dont like museums because they are perceived as boring. The displays in the museum
are almost always the same. Thus, if museums can eliminate such prejudice, they can attract more
visitors.

The role of a museum is to teach people about history. History, however, can be lackluster.

Both are important. Museums need to pursue aspects of both entertainment and history.

Language is deeply related to culture. Unless we understand a countrys cultures, we will have
trouble effectively communicating with native speakers.

Understanding cultures is not easy; thus, this difficulty can detract students from focusing on
learning a language.

In the long run, especially at a high level, mastering a language must go hand-in-hand with
understanding culture.

Advertising can make people aware of good items.

2. Essay
1)
People have been debating the pros and cons of improving computer technology as far back as I can
remember. However, many people are against it because the development of computer technology
requires a huge outlay of capital at a time when many, if not most people in the world, are suffering from
a lack of fundamental necessities. I agree with this stance against computer development and present my
reasons below.
People around the world, especially in Africa, are undernourished. They dont have enough
money to buy basic needs. A recent UNICEF report reveals that a third of the children in Africa do not
have enough food. Accordingly, UNICEF has put a special emphasis on this matter in an attempt to
reduce starvation. They point out that if we each send just one dollar to Africa, the people of Africa will
be free of worries for two days.
But, even assuming the above is very plausible, some may argue that with the advent and rapid
development of technology, todays world has provided us with greater conveniences. One of the best
illustrations is the Internet. These days, countless people can access a vast wealth of information with a
single click of a mouse. Its very convenient. This idea is compatible with mine, but there is one important
matter to consider:
The earth is gradually weakening. Even though current high-tech products give us a greater
enjoyment of life, if the future of the earth is threatened, saving it will be imperative. Although science

has made the impossible possible, and the unrealistic realistic, its advances have been more of a curse
than a blessing. For example, we are now suffering from air pollution, scorching summers, massive
flooding, and so forth. Do you still believe we should focus on improving science? The more we
concentrate on science, the worse the earth will become. Now is the time to look after the earth.
To sum up, everyone may hold a different position on this issue. But, in my case, all things
considered, I firmly believe that spending money on basic needs is a better idea. This is because many
people throughout the world are malnourished, and the earth needs our protection.

2)
There has been an ongoing debate over the pros and cons of mandatory curriculum for as long as I can
remember. Some point out that such compulsory courses may prevent students from thinking creatively.
However, others believe that university should encourage students to choose their own classes. I agree
with the former stance.
To begin with, if a school makes courses optional, many students, perhaps most, are reluctant to
take courses in ethics, history, and philosophy. The reasons might be that they are too boring, and that
they are not relevant for their future success. History, believe that is very relevant to todays world. We
can be sure to learn something about the future by studying history since it repeats itself. Furthermore,
legendary figures, such as Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Buddha, and Genghis Khan, have inspired
countless of todays leaders. This well insinuates that history (as well as other courses) can teach us
invaluable lessons.
But, even assuming the above is very plausible, some may argue that mandatory courses limits
students creativity and ingenuity. I concede this idea. But, I still put an emphasis on required courses
because there is a more important matter to consider:
Students can be more successful if they follow the courses proposed by university. The
curriculum is planned carefully by experts in the administration and on the faculty. Their roles are to lead
students down correct paths. So, my point is that students can better prepare for their future success in
both their future studies and employment. The chance to fail will be much lower than that made by
students.
To sum up, people disagree on this iss ue. Yet, , I firmly believe that required courses have more
advantages than optional ones. This is because history, ethics, and philosophy classes offer students
wisdom, and they have the support or many educational specialists.

3)
There is an ongoing debate over whether or not games play an important role in adults lives. Many
people, perhaps most, believe that games are not valuable to adults. Others, however, believe that games
have positive impacts on adults. I agree with the latter stance and present my reasons below.
Games instill a sense of cooperation regardless of age. Hence, even though adults are already
grown, games give them an opportunity to learn the importance of mutual aid and are reminded of that
importance as they play on a regular basis. As you know, as human beings, we are social animals.
Everything in the world is mutually interwoven. For this reason, I firmly believe that cooperation plays a
vital role in sustaining peace and controlling todays complicated society.
Even assuming the above is very plausible, people who disagree with my view may argue that
games are not helpful for adults. Like the following proverb, The child is father of the man, they assert
that games cannot change ones characteristics. I somewhat agree with this assertion. Yet, I still emphasis
my position because there is one more important matter to consider: Adults can stay healthy by
participating in sports games.
As people age, they have a greater chance of contracting diseases or becoming fat. To illustrate,
we can look at my uncles case. He underwent lung surgery after his retirement. According to his doctor,
the main reason he needed this operation it is that he had not exercised when he was young. These days,
my uncle recovered his health because he has worked out regularly. As far as I know, he goes to the
mountains every week. Whats more, many clinical studies have shown that 30 percent of Korean men
suffer from being overweight. For this reason, I strongly believe that games can provide us with better
lives.
To summarize, although everyone may hold a different position on whether games are valuable
to adults or not, my position is that games are important to adults. In fact, games may be more important
to adults than children. My rationale is that games teach adults a sense of cooperation as well as help
adults live healthier lives when they exercise.

4)
There is an ongoing debate over whether or not we should protect endangered species throughout the
world. Some are against this proposition, saying that we must focus on our basic needs, whereas others
point out that we must look after endangered animals. I agree with the latter position and present my
reasoning below.
The earth has become sick due to heedless construction to serve human needs. This means that
the more we develop lands for ourselves, the more threatened the earth will become. Hence, saving the
earth is an imperative. As is known, overexploiting resources and deforestation have devastated our

planet. Now is the time to care about the earth.

Even assuming the above is very plausible, some still argue that countless people are suffering
from a lack of fundamental needs. A recently released UNICEF report says that one-third of the children
in Africa are undernourished. The report also states that if we each send just one dollar to Africa, they will
be able to buy food for two days. Accordingly, they firmly believe we should continue to develop land for
our own use. I partially concede this. Yet, I still place emphasis on my idea because there is one more
important matter to consider: endangered species imply that the ecosystem of the earth is in danger.
With the advent of modern technology and rapid development, we have benefited from
remarkable advances. Todays science has made the once impossible possible; the unrealistic realistic.
However, everything has its down side; thus, the negative impact on the earth. We are suffering from
scorching summers, habitat destruction, air pollution, and so on. What I want to emphasize is that
endangered species have been severely affected by todays technology. Someday, the ecosystem will be
mostly destroyed due to humans unlimited appetite. For this reason, when we take care of endangered
species we protect ourselves and the earth.
To summarize, everyone may hold a different position on this issue. But, I am for the idea that
we should protect endangered species. I have two reasons for this: One is that the earth is already fullydeveloped. The other is that our basic ecosystem will be destroyed if we continue.

5)
There has been an ongoing debate over the pros and cons of being a leader versus being a
follower. Some people believe that being a leader is much better than being a follower; whereas others
believe that the former is not that attractive because leaders usually handle more work than followers. I
agree with the latter stance.
Does everyone have skills for leadership? The answer to this question is no. For this reason,
many companies--perhaps most--attempt to attract good leaders. They often try to invite proven, qualified
candidates outside of the company. These companies do not mind paying a great deal of money for
scouting talented CEOs. This implies that there are only a small number of people who are considered
good leaders.
Even assuming the above is plausible, some are against my view because leaders have the right
to control some things within their boundaries. Furthermore, they get paid more than lower-level
employees. Hence, with the allure of a high salary, most people would like to assume a leaders position. I
concede this. But, I put an emphasis on my stance since there is one more important matter to consider:
Leaders are more likely to experience stress in the workplace.
Its entirely possible that conflicts and/or cacophonies might frequently occur in any group. At
those times, leaders should take care of every small detail of the conflict that has occurred within the

group. On the other hand, in the case of followers, they simply focus on their duties. To illustrate, my
uncle was promoted to vice president last year, and numerous people congratulated him. But these days,
he has often been sick due largely to his overloaded work schedule. After this, I came to realize that
leaders might have more advantages than followers, and vice versa.
To summarize, although everyone may hold a different position on this issue, I am for the
position that followers can better enjoy themselves because they have less work than leaders, and less
work allows them a greater enjoyment of life.

6)
Should the government subsidize women who must give up opportunities to work in order to have
babies? Some are against this stance that the government is responsible for child-bearing women, whereas
others believe that the government must assist in allowing them to have children and their own jobs. I
agree with the latter stance and present my reasons below.
First, countless married couples in Korea do not want to have more than two children. The main
reason for this preference is that raising a child requires a huge sum of money. Often, when a woman is
pregnant, she worries about the financial burden related to giving birth. To illustrate, she may need to quit
or resign from her job; thus, her income will decrease. In addition to this loss, she will be required to
spend vast amounts of money to raise her child. Because Korean couples do not want to have many
children, the government should encourage them to have as many babies as possible by giving them
appropriate subsidies.
Even if you assume the above scenario is very plausible, some may disagree with my view
primarily because this subsidy would increase taxes. The governments subsidy would be backed by our
taxes, which will cause all of us to be pressed for money. I agree with this rebuttal. I still, however,
support my position because there is a more important matter to consider: Korea will face a difficult
future unless we, Korean people, have as many babies as we have had in the past.
These days, the population in Korea is decreasing. In an attempt to increase the population, the
Korean government established a policy to help married couples who have more than three children. This
effort is attributed to boosting the Korean economy. The fewer babies we have, the worse our economy
will become. Accordingly, the government must subsidize Korean women who give up their jobs to have
children. This will foster the birth of many babies throughout Korea. If women are supported by the
government, they will be free to raise their children.
To summarize, although each person may hold a different position on this issue, all things
considered, I firmly believe that married people should be pecuniarily supported by the government. I
believe this because the Korean economy will be devastated if we dont have babies; the subsidizing
policy allows Korean people to have children and helps them with the money they need to do so.

7)
A debate persists over whether or not developed countries should help alleviate poverty in
underdeveloped countries. Some people are against the policy of developed countries aiding poor
countries. Others, however, believe that poor countries should be financially backed by rich countries. I
agree with the latter stance and present my reasons below.
First, developed countries, including the United States have spent huge sums of money on
things like exploring outer space. People in wealthy countries may argue that advances in the field of
science have provided numerous benefits to humankind. Countless people, however, are currently
struggling with things as basic as having enough food to eat. A recent UNICEF report reports that onethird of children in Africa are undernourished. The report points out that if every person who could afford
to do so gave just one dollar to Africa, the African people could be free to access food for two days. For
this reason, I believe that assisting African people far outweighs doing research on things like outer space.
Even assuming the scenario above is very plausible, some may disagree with my viewpoint,
arguing that they have no reason to help those who are malnourished. They may also blame the
administration of the countries in which most people cant easily obtain food. I somewhat approve of this
position. I still, however, emphasize my idea that wealthier governments should help because there is a
more important matter to consider: The world seems to be much smaller than before due to
communications and travel.
With the remarkable improvements in the field of science, our world is globalized. Many
countries perhaps most have an FTA contract with each other. These often eliminate tariffs between
countries. Particularly in the case of Europe, they have already unified a monetary system called the Euro.
This trend implies that we become one. In the 21st century, everything is mutually interwoven.
Furthermore, countless companies have located branches abroad, becoming multinational corporations.
They frequently advance into Africa where not only are the labor costs reasonable, but the cost of land is
attractive as well. Because Africa gives many advantages to us, we need to help them alleviate their basic
concerns of having enough food.
To summarize, although each person may hold a different position on this issue, I firmly believe that
poor countries should pecuniarily supported by rich ones. The rationale is that as the world is becoming
more globalized, it is a better idea to devote vast amounts of money to help others rather than investing in
exploring outer space.

8)
Some people think that one of the responsibilities of advanced countries is to give financial aid
to poorer countries. Do you think advanced countries should be required to dole out aid to
poorer nations? Why or why not?
1. First draft
There has been an ongoing debate over whether or not developed countries should help
underdeveloped countries in poverty. Some people are against this stance that developed
countries should aid poor countries. However, others believe that poor countries should be
financially backed up by rich countries. I agree with the latter stance and present my reasons
below.
First of all, developed countries including the U.S. have spent huge sums of money on
exploring outer spaces. People in those countries may argue that advances in the field of science
have given numerous benefits to humankind. However, countless people are currently struggling
with gaining foods. A recent UNICEF report releases that one-third of the children in Africa are
undernourished. They point out that if we each give just one dollar to Africa, they can be free of
accessing foods for two days. For this reason, I believe that assisting African people far
outweighs doing research on outer spaces.
Even assuming the above is very plausible, some may disagree with my viewpoint,
arguing that they have no reasons to help those who are malnourished. They can also blame the
administration of the countries in which most people cant easily find foods. I somewhat
approve of this position. However, I still put an emphasis on my idea because there is a more
important matter to consider: The world seems to be much closer.
With the remarkable improvements in the field of science, this world tends to be
globalized. Many countries perhaps most- have an FTA contract with each other. They often
get rid off tariffs between countries. Especially, in the case of Europe, they have already unified
a monetary system which is called Euro. This trend implies that we become one. In the 21st
century, everything is mutually interwoven. Furthermore, countless companies have attempted
to locate their branches abroad. They frequently advance into Africa where not only is the
laboring cost reasonable, but also the cost of the lands is attractive. Since Africa gives many
advantages to us, we need to help them out to alleviate their concerns to being supplied foods.
To summarize, although each person may hold a different position on this issue, I firmly
believe that poor countries should be pecuniarily supported by rich ones. The rationale is that
its a better idea to waste vast amounts of money on helping them rather than investing outer

spaces and we are getting much closer.

2. Edited version
A debate persists over whether or not developed countries should help alleviate poverty in
underdeveloped countries. Some people are against the policy of developed countries aiding
poor countries. Others, however, believe that poor countries should be financially backed by
rich countries. I agree with the latter stance and present my reasons below.
First, developed countries, including the United States have spent huge sums of money
on things like exploring outer space. People in wealthy countries may argue that advances in the
field of science have provided numerous benefits to humankind. Countless people, however, are
currently struggling with things as basic as having enough food to eat. A recent UNICEF report
reports that one-third of children in Africa are undernourished. The report points out that if
every person who could affort to do so gave just one dollar to Africa, the African people could
be free to access food for two days. For this reason, I believe that assisting African people far
outweighs doing research on things like outer space.
Even assuming the scenario above is very plausible, some may disagree with my
viewpoint, arguing that they have no reason to help those who are malnourished. They may also
blame the administration of the countries in which most people cant easily obtain food. I
somewhat approve of this position. I still, however, emphasize my idea that wealthier
governments should help because there is a more important matter to consider: The world seems
to be much smaller than before due to communications and travel.
With the remarkable improvements in the field of science, our world is globalized.
Many countries perhaps most have an FTA contract with each other. These often eliminate
tariffs between countries. Particularly in the case of Europe, they have already unified a
monetary system called the Euro. This trend implies that we become one. In the 21st century,
everything is mutually interwoven. Furthermore, countless companies have located branches
abroad, becoming multinational corporations. They frequently advance into Africa where not
only are the labor costs reasonable, but the cost of land is attractive as well. Because Africa
gives many advantages to us, we need to help them alleviate their basic concerns of having
enough food.
To summarize, although each person may hold a different position on this issue, I firmly
believe that poor countries should pecuniarily supported by rich ones. The rationale is that as the
world is becoming more globalized, it is a better idea to devote vast amounts of money to help
others rather than investing in exploring outer space.

10

9)
There has been an ongoing debate over whether or not there should be an equal number of male
and female students in every lecture. Some are against this stance, arguing that this policy can
discourage students from thinking creatively. However, others firmly believe that male and
female students can learn different perspectives from one another. I agree with the former
position and present my reasons below.
To begin with, what is the policy of maintaining the equal number of males and
females in class intended to accomplish? Even if this is plausible, in my opinion, it sounds
possible just in theory, but not in actual practice. This is not only because each person has
different tastes, but also because males and females usually have dissimilar interests. One can
see this fact, relating to students choice of major. To illustrate, there were 34 female and 5 male
students in my department (French language and literature), at undergraduate school. This
proportion equates to approximately seven to one. In my department, female students
demonstrated more interest in French. Many studies have revealed that women possess more
abilities connected to humanities, whereas men excel in engineering, or abilities related to math.
Accordingly, the policy seems to prevent students from truly enhancing their aptitudes.
Even assuming the scenario above is plausible; people who disagree with my view
argue that students can improve themselves by being exposed to a different gender in the
classroom. This is attributable, in general, to the notion that women better handle details than
men do; yet, men can take care of larger scale ideas easier than women. I still, however,
emphasize my idea because there is a more important matter to consider:

The policy is not

conducive to our individual ingenuity.

If each countrys Ministry of Education establishes this policy, every subject at
universities will become a compulsory one. All schools will attempt to control the percentage of
males and females in every class. Eventually, this effort will be detrimental to students
learning. They would be frequently urged to take unwanted classes for the purpose of arriving at
the perfect proportion of genders. In stead of this, universities should offer autonomies where
students can pursue in-depth knowledge as well as expand their horizons in their fields.
To summarize, although each person may hold a different position on this issue, in my
case, after considering all sides I am for the idea of allowing students to determine for
themselves what classes they take to fulfill their individual courses of study.. I have two
reasons for this. One is that people have different interests. The other is that mandatory
curriculums can have a negative impact on students.
Comment I think you need just a bit more of a close.. if you want to include some of
the suggestions I think that will work.

11

10)
More and more women go out to work. Is it the governments responsibility to subsidize them
and provide free staff and facilities to care for their children? To what extent do you agree or
disagree to this idea?
1. First version
There is an ongoing debate over whether or not the government should subsidize women who
have babies for giving them opportunities to work. Some are against this stance that the
government is responsible for them, whereas others believe that the government must assist in
letting them have their own jobs. I agree with the latter stance and present reasons below.
First of all, countless married couples in Korea do not want to have more than two
babies. The main reason is that it takes huge sums of money to raise a baby. In case a woman is
pregnant, she will be financially worried about giving a birth. To illustrate, she should quit or
resign her job; thus, her income will decrease. In addition to this loss, she will suffer from
spending vast amounts of money on raising a baby. For this reason, since Korean couples do not
want to have lots of babies, the government had better encourage them to have as many babies
as possible by giving them proper subsidies.
Even assuming the above is very plausible, some may disagree with my view because
people should pay for more taxes. This is because the governments subsidy is backed by our
taxes which will cause us to be pressed. I agree with this rebuttal. However, I still put an
emphasis on my position because there is a more important matter to consider: Korea will have
a hard time in the future unless we, Korean people, have as many babies as the past.
These days, the population in Korea is getting more decreased. In an attempt to
increase the population, the Korean government set up a policy to help married couples who
have over three babies. This effort is all attributed to boosting Korean economy. The fewer
babies we have, the worse our economy will become. Accordingly, the government must
subsidize Korean women to have their jobs for the purpose of fostering many babies throughout
Korea. If they are supported by the government, they will be free of raising babies.
To summarize, although everyone may hold a different position on this issue, all things
considered, I firmly believe that married people should be pecuniarily supported by the
government. This is not only because Korean economy will be more devastated unless we have
babies, but also because the subsidizing policy allows Korean people to have more babies.

12

2. Edited version
Should the government subsidize women who must give up opportunities to work in order to
have babies? Some are against this stance that the government is responsible for child-bearing
women, whereas others believe that the government must assist in allowing them to have
children and their own jobs. I agree with the latter stance and present my reasons below.
First, countless married couples in Korea do not want to have more than two children.
The main reason for this preference is that raising a child requires a huge sum of money. Often,
when a woman is pregnant, she worries about the financial burden related to giving birth. To
illustrate, she may need to quit or resign from her job; thus, her income will decrease. In
addition to this loss, she will be required to spend vast amounts of money to raise her child.
Because Korean couples do not want to have many children, the government should encourage
them to have as many babies as possible by giving them appropriate subsidies.
Even if you assume the above scenario is very plausible, some may disagree with my
view primarily because this subsidy would increase taxes. The governments subsidy would be
backed by our taxes, which will cause all of us to be pressed for money. I agree with this
rebuttal. I still, however, support my position because there is a more important matter to
consider: Korea will face a difficult future unless we, Korean people, have as many babies as we
have had in the past.
These days, the population in Korea is decreasing. In an attempt to increase the
population, the Korean government established a policy to help married couples who have more
than three children. This effort is attributed to boosting the Korean economy. The fewer babies
we have, the worse our economy will become. Accordingly, the government must subsidize
Korean women who give up their jobs to have children. This will foster the birth of many babies
throughout Korea. If women are supported by the government, they will be free to raise their
children.
To summarize, although each person may hold a different position on this issue, all
things considered, I firmly believe that married people should be pecuniarily supported by the
government. I believe this because the Korean economy will be devastated if we dont have
babies; the subsidizing policy allows Korean people to have children and helps them with the
money they need to do so.

13

11)
With the advent of the media and rapid development, TV has constantly given us vivid
information regarding this world. Moreover, we have also gained pleasure by watching our
favorite TV stars and programs. However, TV has also had a negative effect on us. It has been
the main cause of gossiping others ranging from politicians to entertainers. Furthermore,
through TV, people could see TV stars heedlessly spend huge sums of money without proper
reasons. A longstanding debate for this has existed. Some believe that we dont have to care
little about their styles of wasting, whereas some are against this stance by saying that there are
countless people who are undernourished throughout the world. I agree with the former
viewpoint and present my reasons below.
First, entertainers deserve every penny they earn. Not all the people who are engaging
in the field of entertainment are rich. They make every effort in order to be successful. They
continuously try their best to stay on top. Its not that easy for them to maintain their popularity
since there are thousands of thousands rivals behind them who also attempt to fulfill their goals.
Because many audiences perhaps most just observe their bright outer aspects, those
audiences seem to be grossly mistaken and/or misunderstood. If they look into hardships which
numerous entertainers face, they will not complain the way entertainers waste their money any
more.
Even assuming the above is very plausible, some may disagree with my assertion,
arguing that one-third of the children in Africa are malnourished. UNICEF recently reports that
if we each send just one dollar to Africa, they could be free of having foods for two days. I
agree with this stand. But, I still put an emphasis on my idea because there is one more
important matter to consider: Being rich is our distinct.
Most people would like to have as much money as they can. For this reason, they study
hard in order to go to top-notch universities. They also work hard for the purpose of saving a lot
of money. Who would like to be poor? In my opinion, having a lot of money is our basic
appetite. Then, if they become rich, most of them will be willing to waste money on buying
wonderful cars and gorgeous houses, and eating expensive foods. I firmly believe that if we
were in movie or TV stars shoes, we would also have high chances of spending vast amounts of
money on something. Therefore, we dont have the right to blame them.
To summarize, although each person may hold a different position on this issue, all
things considered, we should not reprimand movie or TV stars some of whom, these days, show
tendencies to waste much money without caution. The rationale for my idea is that not only do
they deserve what they earn, but we would also take the same way they do as same humankind.

14

12)
University should accept equal numbers of male and female students in every subject.
To what extents do you agree or disagree?
There has been an ongoing debate over whether or not there should be the equal number of
males and female students in every lecture. Some are against this stance, arguing that this policy
can detract students from thinking creatively. However, others firmly believe that male and
female students can access different perspectives from one another. I agree with the former
position and present my reasons below.
To begin with, what is the policy of maintaining the equal number of males and
females in class good for? Even if this is plausible, in my opinion, it sounds possible just in
theory, but not in practice. This is not only because each person has different tastes, but also
because males and females usually have dissimilar interests. One can see this fact, relating to
students choices of their majors. To illustrate, there were 34 female students and 5 male ones in
my department (French language and literature) at undergraduate school. The proportion
denotes approximately seven to one. In my department, females had shown more interest in
French. Many studies have revealed that women possess more abilities connected to humanities,
whereas men excel in engineering. Accordingly, the policy seems to prevent students from truly
enhancing their aptitudes.
Even assuming the scenario above is plausible, people who disagree with my view
argue that students can improve themselves by being exposed to a different gender. This is
attributed that, in general, women better handle delicacies than men; yet, men can take care of a
big-scale one easier than women. I still, however, emphasize my idea because there is a more
important matter to consider: The policy is not conducive to our ingenuity.
If each countrys Ministry of Education establishes this policy, every subject at
universities will make a compulsory one. All the school will attempt to control the size of males
and females in every class. Eventually, this effort will be detrimental of students learning. They
are frequently urged to take unwanted classes for the purpose of making the perfect proportion
of genders. In stead of this, universities should offer autonomies where students can pursue an
in-depth knowledge as well as expand their horizons in their fields.
To summarize, although each person my hold a different position on this issue, all
things considered, in my case, I am for the idea of giving students self-controls. I have two
reasons for this. One is that people have different interests. The other is that mandatory
curriculum can have negative impacts on students.

15

13)
With the dawn of globalization and the expansion of interaction among nations, countries are
beginning to lose their national identities and inherent cultures and traditions. Cite some effects
of this international trend and list some plausible solutions to prevent this loss.
1. First draft
The world has been much closer with the advent of aerial technology and rapid development. In
the past, especially 150 years ago, people might never have dreamed visiting England within 10
hours. Even if the globalization has given numerous benefits to us, it has also had negative
impacts on each countrys own national identities as well as cultures. This essay will explore
what the internalization has caused and enumerate possible ways to lessen the causes.
First of all, lingua franca has occurred through the world. This is largely attributed to
English which has been considered the world language. Accordingly, countless languages across
the world have undergone morphological alternations heavily influenced by the influx of
English. To illustrate in detail, Korean has a lot of words imported by English. Since the Korean
War, Korean has combined wit English. Moreover, as people are more exposed to the media and
the Internet, they can easily access foreign cultures. Through these channels, original Korean
has been altered to a contaminated language. In addition to this language problem, the young
generation in Korea pays less attention to traditional cultures, such as Korean history and
costumes. They are largely fascinated by the western cultures.
If the above is plausible, how can we relieve these problems? Lets look at the
language matters first. In the case of North Korea, every time they import foreign words, they
attempt to change them to Korean languages. Unless they have proper words, they try their best
to coin new words. But, we havent tried to make new vocabulary. This is the very policy we
should pursue. Second, history should be required courses at university. Therefore, university
students must take history lectures in order to graduate from undergraduate school. Even if they
are urged to enroll such classes, the classes can consciously or unconsciously instill the
importance of history.
To summarize, the world is getting closer and closer. This phenomenon not only has
presented benefits, but also has offered disadvantages. The disadvantages might be included in
the following categories: language alternations; lack of interests in traditional heritages and
outfits. In order to alleviate these problems, we should change foreign words to proper Korean
ones and history lectures should be prerequisite for graduation.

16

2. Edited version
The world has been much closer with the advent of aerial technology and rapid development. In
the past, especially 150 years ago, people might never have dreamed visiting England within 10
hours. Even if the globalization has given numerous benefits to us, it has also had negative
impacts on each countrys own national identities as well as cultures. This essay will explore
what the internalization has caused and enumerate possible ways to lessen the causes.
First of all, lingua franca has occurred through the world. This is largely attributed to
English which has been considered the world language. Accordingly, countless languages across
the world have undergone morphological alternations heavily influenced by the influx of
English. To illustrate in detail, Korean has a lot of words imported from English. Since the
Korean War, Korean has combined wit English. Moreover, as people are more exposed to the
media and the internet, they can easily access foreign cultures. Through these channels, original
Korean has been altered to a contaminated language. In addition to this language problem, the
young generation in Korea pays less attention to traditional cultures, such as Korean history and
costumes. They are largely fascinated by the western cultures.
If the above is plausible, how can we relieve these problems? Lets look at the
language matters first. In the case of North Korea, every time they import foreign words, they
attempt to change them to Korean language(s). Unless they have proper words, they try their
best to coin new words. But, we havent tried to make new vocabulary. This is the very policy
we should pursue. Second, history should be a required course(s) at universities. Therefore,
university students must take history lectures in order to graduate from undergraduate school.
(Even if) Its because they are urged to enroll such class, the class can consciously or
unconsciously instill the importance of history.
To summarize, nations are getting closer and closer. This phenomenon (not only has)
has not only presented benefits, but (also has) has also offered disadvantages. The disadvantages
might be included in the following categories: language alternations; lack of interests in
traditional heritages and outfits. In order to alleviate these problems, we should change foreign
words to proper Korean ones and history lectures should be a prerequisite for graduating
students.

14)
Some people say that international travel gives certain advantages and disadvantages to
businessmen, especially with the globalization of trade and commerce. Examine the advantages
and disadvantages of international travel in relation to business.

17

There is an ongoing debate as to whether or not international travel plays an important role in
business. Some people are against this stance that international travel is not conducive to
business as expected. However, others believe that it is beneficial for businessmens having an
eye for international trends. In this essay, I will compare the pros and cons of the international
trade related to business.
Let me first address the benefits of international travel. As todays society becomes
fast-paced, everything changes at a faster speed than before. The field of business is not
exceptional, either. As businessmen, they should overcome fast-changing consumer tastes. For
this reason, if they frequently travel abroad, the travel will allow them to have an opportunity to
keep track of the worlds trends. Furthermore, as this world is much closer, more companies are
willing to locate their branches abroad. In this sense, frequent travels are to function as the
sources of forming a better relationship with foreign companies. This might assist in having a
better contract with others.
Second, let me explain the disadvantages of international travel. If businessmen focus
on international travel, it will prevent them from having a good infrastructure in the domestic
market. Since trends in each country fully vary from country to country, they may have higher
chances of being failed. In addition, it takes huge sums of money to have an international travel
even if it instills an international sense for business. Whats more, there are countless races, and
numerous religions. This point implies that people in this world have different values. Hence,
although companies are eager to expand their boundaries to the world, their plans might be big
challenges.
To summarize, there are the benefits and disadvantages of international travel connected to
business. The former ones help businessmen to improve their senses for international
popularities and also help them to advance their companies to the world market. However, in the
case of disadvantages, not only can businessmen get track off the domestic market, but they also
need a lot of money to invest their companies abroad.

15)
Financial loans between friends can harm or damage the friendship. Do you agree or disagree?
Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.
An ongoing debate exists over whether loaning money to friends can damage the friendships or
not. Regarding this controversial issue, I strongly support the saying lend your money and lose
your friends." The reasoning behind my thinking is that the pursuit of money can make people

18

disregard friendships. Whats more, loans from friends are not seriously considered.
To start with, money can make people so selfish and greedy that even friendships seem
meaningless to them. This largely results from the fact that people believe that money talks. A
main reason friends should not borrow money from each other is that when hard-earned money
is not paid back on time, lenders become furious and hold grudges against borrowers, regardless
of their friendships. To show this point, a countless number of court cases deal with hostile
friends fighting over unpaid money. Lenders often file lawsuits against their friends who
borrowed from them. In return, borrowers feel extremely betrayed and hurt by their cold-hearted
friends who seem to value money more than their friendships. In this respect, money
transactions among friends can unquestionably damage friendships.
Another reason is that loans from friends are not taken seriously. This is because
relationships based on familiarity and fondness often cause borrowers to take the loans for
granted and to care little about punctuality in repayment. At the same time, friendships make it
difficult for lenders to become formal and businesslike when asking for repayment. In my own
experience, when I was a freshman in college, my friend asked me to lend him two hundred
dollars. Without any hesitation, I lent him the cash without any written agreement or payment
plan because I did not want to cloud the friendly relationship. Unfortunately, my friend
neglected to repay my loan for almost a year. Therefore, whenever I saw my friend, I started to
feel bitter and doubted his trustworthiness.
To conclude, I strongly believe that financial transactions between friends can damage
relationships. The reason is that money can make people become blind with greed. Moreover,
friends often delay in paying back the money. Consequently, I believe that the best way to solve
this problem is by following the saying, he that lends, gives."

19