2017社会话题相关的雅思英语作文范文

在大多数国家，跨国企业和他们的产品越来越重要。这种趋势严重损害了我们的生活质量。你同意这种观点吗?下面是小编分享的.雅思社会类作文，欢迎大家阅读!

Modern lifestyles mean that many parents have little time for their children. Many children suffer because they do not get as much attention from their parents as children did in the past.

Do you agree or disagree?

　　Model Answer:

People who argue that nowadays parents give less attention to their children than in the past are frequently looking back to a brief period of time in the twentieth century when mothers in middle-class families remained at home to look after their children. What these people are suggesting is that women nowadays should not go out to work.

The fact of the matter is that in the majority of families in the past both parents worked much longer hours than they do nowadays. What has changed is that now in most countries their children attend school rather than also working themselves. In that sense they may have less contact with their parents.

Nowadays, as a result of acquiring an education, children come into contact with teachers who naturally have to explain why some of their students are failing. What teachers come up with are frequent stories of parents who are simply too busy for their children. And if children are not supervised by their parents, they will often underperform at school. However, academic failure is nothing new even when one or both parents are at home. If children are neglected by their parents, they will suffer.

In my opinion, children probably suffered more in the past when the whole family was obliged to work long hours just to survive. Nowadays children are protected by the law. Moreover access to education means that they have greater opportunities than ever before.

In most countries multinational companies and their products are becoming more and more important. This trend is seriously damaging our quality of life.

Do you agree or disagree?

　　Model Answer:

Multinational companies nowadays find it convenient both to market their goods all over the world and set up production facilities wherever they find it convenient. In my opinion this has had an adverse effect on our quality of life in three main areas.

The first area is their products. Supporters of globalization would argue that multinational companies make high-quality goods available to more people. While this may be true to some extent, it also means that we have less choice of products to consume. When powerful multinational companies invade local markets with their goods, they often are obliged local companies with fewer resources to go out of business. In consequence, we are obliged to buy multinational products whether we like them or not.

This brings me to my second point. It is sometimes said that multinational companies and globalisation are making societies more open. This may be true. However, I would point out that as a result the human race is losing its cultural diversity. If we consumed varied products, societieswherever we live would be more varied. This can be seen by the fact that we all shop in identicalmultinational supermarkets and buy identical products wherever we live.

Thirdly, defenders of multinational companies often point out that they provide jobs. Although this is undoubtedly true, it also means that we have become more valnurable on them, which in turn makes us more vulnerable to their decisions. When, for example, a multinational decides to move its production facilities to another country, this has an adverse effect on its workers who lose their jobs.

All in all, I believe that if we as voters pressured our governments to make multinational companies more responsible and to protect local producers from outside competition, we could have the benefits of globalisation without its disadvantages.

More and more qualified people are moving from poor to rich countries to fill vacancies in specialist areas like engineering, computing and medicine. Some people believe that by encouraging the movement of such people, rich countries are stealing from poor countries. Others feel that this is only part of the natural movement of workers around the world.

Do you agree or disagree?

　　Model Answer:

The so-called ‘brain drain’ from poor to rich countries is now robbing poorer countries of essential personnel like doctors, nurses, engineers, and the trend is set to continue, if not to get worse.

Some people say this movement of people around the world is not a new phenomenon. Migrant workers have always been attracted by the wider choice of employment and greater opportunity in major cities in their own countries and abroad. Recently, as the technological age has advanced and as richer countries find themselves with not enough workers to feed their development, they have had to run to other parts of the world to find the necessary manpower. Many richer European countries, for example, are now trying to attract skilled IT workers from my home country India by offering higher salaries than they could hope to earn at home. With the globalisation of the world economy, many people feel that the process cannot be stopped.

Others, myself included, are of the opinion that measures should be taken to address the problem, by compensating poorer countries financially for the loss of investment in the people they have trained, like doctors and nurses. Admittedly, this may be cumbersome to administer, but an attempt could be made to get it off the ground. Another step, which in part has already begun to happen, is to use the forces of globalization itself. Western countries could encourage people to stay in their own countries by direct investment in projects like computer factories or by sending patients abroad for treatment, as is already happening.

It is obviously difficult to restrict the movement of people around the world and it is probably foolish to try to stop it, but attempts should be made to redress the imbalance.