•每天训练短文写作(比雅思作文要短)也是必要的。选择与雅思主题相类似的题目，并用10-15分钟写一篇短文。在这10-15分钟内，尝试花很少时间头脑风暴(比如30秒)，写尽可能多的东西。大多数学生发现通过这样的练习，他们写短文的字数越来越多 - 但请记住，这需要慢慢来!
International entertainers, including sports personalities, often get paid millions of dollars in one year.
In your view, with widespread poverty in the world, are these huge earnings justified?
The salaries of many singers, dancers and sports people have increased out of all proportion in recent years, while in places like Sudan people are starving to death. I do not believe that anyone should be able to earn such enormous salaries what so many people in the world are living in poverty.
One of the factors which should affect what a person can earn ought to be the benefit of person's work to society. It is unreasonable for a famous singer to be able to earn far more from an evening's entertainment than, for instance, a medical scientist who develops a new drug which produces a treatment for a common disease. The pop star certainly has a value in society, but the value in no way exceeds, or even matches, the value gained from a successful medication.
Secondly. work done should be paid according to the amount of effort and skill that goes into it. Nobody would deny that a famous person works hard and is skillful, yet such people do not work any harder than thousand of other workers who have no claim to fame. Yet market force are such that these super stars can obtain millions of dolor while other unknown people sometimes earn less than they need to survive.
Finally, it should be possible for governments to work together to ensure that the amount of money in circulation should be more equally and fairly distributed. This seems only fair given that there are so many suffering.
To conclude, it is clear that world poverty is a serious problem and yet the problem could be eased if governments and companies gave more thought to paying salaries on a more equitable basis and if they started to contribute more money to those in need.
"Prevention is better than cure." Out of a country's health budget, a large proportion should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventative measures.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Of course it goes without saying that prevention is better than cure. That is why, in recent years, there has been a growing body of opinion in favour of putting more resources into health education and preventive measures. The argument is that ignorance of, for example, basic hygiene or the dangers of an unhealthy diet or lifestyle needs to be combatted by special nationwide publicity campaigns, as well as longer-term health education.
Obviously, there is a strong human argument for catching any medical condition as early as possible. There is also an economic argument for doing so. Statistics demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of treating a condition in the early stages, rather than delaying until more expensive and prolonged treatment is necessary. Then there are social or economic costs, perhaps in terms of loss of earnings for the family concerned or unemployed benefit paid by the state.
So far so good, but the difficulties start when we try to define what the 'proportion' of the budget should be, particularly if the funds will be 'diverted from treatment'. Decisions on exactly how much of the total health budget should be spent in this way are not a matter for the non-specialist, but should be made on the basis of an accepted health service model.
This is the point at which real problems occur - the formulation of the model. How do we accurately measure which health education campaigns are effective in both medical and financial terms? How do we agree about the medical efficacy of various screening programmes, for example, when the medical establishment itself does not agree? A very rigorous process of evaluation is called for, so that we can make informed decisions.