Reading Test

Listening Test

Ielts Band Scores 1 2 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9

Raw Score 1 2,3 4,5,6,7 8,9,10 11,12,13 14,15,16 17,18,19 20,21,22,23 24,25,26,27 28,29,30 31,32,33 34,35 36,37 38,39 40

Ielts Band Scores 1 2 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9

Raw Score 1 2,3 4,5,6, 7,8,9 10,11,12 13,14,15,16 17,18,19,20 21,22,23,24 25,26,27,28 29,30,31 32,33 34,35 36,37 38,39 40

Hy xem qua cc ch thng dng trong IELTS. Hy xem bn c cho chng cha, nu cha, hy tm hiu v n. 1. Advertising 2. Animal Rights: testing on animals, vegetarianism, zoos 3. Cities: urbanisation, problems of city life 4. Crime: police, punishments/prisons, rehabilitation, capital punishment 5. Education: studying abroad, technology in education, education in developing countries, higher education, home-schooling, bad behaviour, corporal punishment, single sex education, streaming (grouping children according to ability) 6. Environment: global warming, impact of humans on the environment, solutions to environment problems, waste/rubbish, litter, recycling, nuclear power 7. Family: family size, working parents, negative effects on children, divorce, care for old people 8. Gender: gender and education, gender and work, womens and mens role in the family 9. Genetic Engineering: positives, negatives, genetically modified foods 10. Global Issues: problems in developing countries, how to help developing countries, immigration, multi-cultural societies, globalisation 11. Government and Society: what governments can do, public services, censorship, video cameras in public places 12. Guns and Weapons: gun ownership and possession, police and guns, nuclear weapons, armed forces 13. Health: diet, exercise, state health systems, private healthcare, alternative medicine, stress 14. Housing and Architecture: state housing, old buildings, modern/green buildings 15. International Language: English as an international language 16. Money: money and society, consumerism 17. Personal Development: happiness, success, nature or nurture 18. Sport and Leisure: professional/competitive sport, sport salaries, sport and politics 19. Tourism: positives, negative effects on environment, future of tourism 20. Traditions and Modern Life: losing traditional skills, traditional customs 21. Transport: traffic problems and solutions, public transport, road safety 22. Television, Internet and Mobile Phones: positives and negatives, Internet compared to newspapers and books 23. Water: importance of clean water, water supply, water should be free, bottled water 24. Work: same job for life, self-employment, unemployment, work/life balance, technology and work, child labour

A much debated issue these days is whether citizens should take out private health insurance or not. The cost of providing free medical care for both the wealthy and the poor is far too great for any government, and most people agree that if you can pay for insurance, you should. In this essay, I will argue that all who can afford it should be insured, but free medical care must be made available for those too poor to do so. The most important reason for encouraging people to take out private health insurance is the cost to the government of health care. Free health cover for people who are able to pay for it is a waste of public money. Of course, people will only pay health insurance premiums if they know that they are getting good value for their money. If they get sick, they should pay very little or nothing at all. In addition, the privately insured are entitled to special benefits such as having the choice of their own doctors, and being able to avoid long waiting lists for hospital beds. On the other hand, those who really cannot afford to pay private insurance premiums, which are often very high, are still entitled as citizens to the best medical care available; they cannot be expected to pay their own medical bills. However, if they are working, they should still pay a percentage of their wage (say 1 to 2%) as a tax which pays towards the cost of providing free medical services. In conclusion, most people should privately insure their health, but it is unreasonable to suppose that all citizens can afford it. Therefore, a safety net in the form of a basic free health care system must exist for the very poor and the unemployed.

The diagrams show data for a flu epidemic which hit a large country town in 1996. Figure 1 gives the number of persons who died; Figure 2 shows the percentage breakdown of females who received a new flu vaccine; and Figure 3 gives the number of cases of flu before and during the epidemic. In Figure 1 it can be seen that the flu was responsible for the deaths of 2 females but no males in the period from March to May. However, from June to August, there were 4 female deaths and 1 male death. According to the pie chart in Figure 2, only those females most at risk were given the new flu vaccine; 28% did not take part in the trial. Of those females who took part, 35% were aged (over 65 years old); 24% were babies or children; and 13% were either hospitalised or receiving other medical attention. From Figure 3 it is clear that the new vaccine had a positive effect on the number of new cases of flu reported in females. There were just over 1000 cases reported in March, climbing rapidly to a peak of 3500 in June. Thereafter, the number of cases dropped slowly to about 2800 in August, before levelling off at 2500 for the rest of the year. For males, the figures were lower but showed a similar trend throughout the epidemic.