+ 91 - 0172 - 4666 001, +91-97790-55236
  SCO 21, 2nd Floor, Sector 17 E, Chandigarh

7 Band Essay Samples

Free Demo Classes for 4 Days

7 Band Essay Samples

Free IELTS 7 band essay samples of the past IELTS Exams

Nowadays more people are living by themselves. What are the reasons for this? Will this have a negative or a positive impact on the society?

Pace of change has quickened in the recent past and as a result of this our social behaviours have also undergone sea change and in the modern world living alone is a trend and not an aberration any more.

There are many reasons as to why people live alone , the first reason is the freedom individual desires , because in the modern world individualism is respected and is shown to be the ideal by our media who name it as empowerment and life without any boundaries.

Second reason is the development of communications technology which blurs the boundaries between real and virtual , for example we are connected with all our friends with social media such as face book, this kind of connections makes us believe that we know all about our friends and family , therefore, disconnection with real world is not actually felt.

In my view, people living individually will have a bad impact on the society, as there are many disadvantages of living alone, first of all people would not have any social support network because they live alone and in case of any help needed by them, it will not be forthcoming, furthermore, it also promotes sadness because as the age advances people begin to feel void and emptiness which can only be filled by other humans, but since they live alone, it increases, and gives rise to loneliness and sadness leading to diseases such as depression etc.

To conclude, I would like to state that we should try be as social as we can because joys of life are to experienced together and if we continue to live alone , a day might come that will damage the entire social structure of our society beyond repair.

Some people view giving presents as an important way to show care to family and friends, others think there are more important things that can be done to show care and appreciation. Do you agree or disagree

We humans being social animals crave for care, love and affection. Everyone wants to be cared and appreciated and to reciprocate we wish to show same level of affection to our fellow beings. But sadly our world has become extremely materialistic and weighs everything in terms of money hence there are many people who think giving presents is only way to show care and endearment. However, in my opinion we can do other things than buying presents to show our fondness and love to our family.

First of all, buying a present signifies quantifying your emotions and are in a way disrespectful because it is improper to weigh emotions in monetary terms, for example if we judge someone’s affection just because they bought us a costly diamond and rank them ahead of the near and dear ones who spend time, make us laugh and share our happiness and sorrows, it will be an insult to their affection, therefore, we must respect and judge people as to how much difference they make in our lives and not just how lavish their gifts are.

Secondly when people buy expensive gifts for their near and dear ones to show affection, usually they are trying to cover their mistakes, for example a parent who has not celebrated his child’s birthday with her, attempts to make it for his mistake by buying her an expensive toy or electronic gadget. Thus, showering with expensive gifts normally has contrasting purpose which is against the basic tenet of love and affection.

To conclude, as mentioned above, showing care and appreciation is an emotional state and it can not be evaluated in money or other materialistic things , therefore, to show that we really care for someone it’s not necessary to buy them expensive gifts and only a genuine intention about how you feel should suffice.

University students should pay all the cost of their studies because university education benefits more than it benefits society as a whole. To what extend do you agree or disagree

Education is given special importance world over and almost, all the countries in the world try to impart education to as many citizens as it can. The rule followed is higher the better because of its obvious advantages. Since education is mostly subsidized to some extent by all nations, there is a debate as to whether students should pay the entire expenses or should it be offered at a reduced cost. In my view education should be offered at lesser cost because of it’s over all advantages to society.

First of all, cost of education is going up all the time keeping in tune with the increase in costs in general, therefore, many students who are brilliant in studies might find the cost prohibitive to pursue higher education. In my view such students deserve a chance to get higher education because they can offer so much to society, for example if a student from poor family gets free education and becomes a scientist and discovers something which helps mankind , he would have paid much more than he received. Therefore, such students must be helped.

Furthermore, students who receive quality education can offer a great competitive edge to a nation which can help creating so many employment opportunities. For example a student after taking higher education becomes an entrepreneur and thus offers jobs to so many people is a case of money well spent by the society. Hence we should encourage students with such strong potential.

To conclude my discussion I submit that education is important for all and it benefits society and individuals though measurement of exact amount of advantage is difficult. But considering the apparent advantages it offers we must continue to support students for higher education.

Children today are too dependent on computers and electronic entertainment. It would be better to encourage them to spend more time outside playing sports and games. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give your opinion.

With the progress in science and our changed lifestyles in the recent past, we have been using more and more electronic gadgets and computers and as a result our dependency and usage is growing more on them. In this changed landscape of life children are no exception and they also have been using these items more and more. I agree that we should encourage children to spend more time playing outdoor sports and games as we will see in the foregoing paragraphs.

First of all increased dependence on computers and electronic items encourages inactivity and laziness amongst children , this makes them susceptible to different types of lifestyle related diseases such as Diabetes, high blood pressure and cardiovascular diseases etc. For example the recent rise of diabetes and obesity in young children has shown clear co-relation in reduced physical activity. Therefore, we must encourage children to play physical games.

Another argument in support of encouraging children for outdoor games is that it increases social interaction amongst them and helps in holistic growth of the children. Hence children learn to co-operate and thus become good members of the society eventually which benefits all humankind. For example when children play football, they learn to play as team, hence promoting co-operation. Thus encouraging children for outdoor games is good for society as well because it teaches them desirable characteristics of good society members.

The above mentioned discussion clearly shows that children must be motivated to play outdoor games and sports as not only this helps them in getting physically fit but is also beneficial for the society as a whole.

It is expected that there will be a higher proportion of old people than young people in the future in some countries. Do you think it is a positive or negative development?

The advances in medical science and other improvements such as abundance of food has resulted in increased lifespan of the humans in most parts of the world and on the other hand birth rate has declined in the past few dates. It has resulted in a situation where it is projected that in some countries there will be greater population of old people than young people. This essay will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this development.

First of all, on the positive note we can a learn a lot from the wisdom of elderly. Older people have wealth of experience and we can certainly build upon the knowledge and experience of older people and achieve higher levels of progress in all sectors of life for example research done by the older generation lays the ground map of growth for future generations and human race has always relied heavily on the wisdom and experience of elderly.

On the other hand, having large old population has its problems as well. One of the major problems is the decaying health of elderly, which means a country will need to invest significantly in the health care and this huge expense would put serious stress on its economy.

Another problem due to higher number of older people in the country is that there will be fewer people in the country with greater level of productivity. This will result in loss of efficiency and will adversely impact economy and overall earning power of its citizens and will also affect its competitiveness in the international environment.

From above discussion it is clear there are advantages and disadvantages of having older people in the country , I am of the view that in an ideal situation there should be an equilibrium between the young and old people in a country so that it could benefit from the experience of older generation while have effecieny and productivity of young people.

Sports are central to entertainment of our life and have been used as such since time immemorial. In the past when there were few means of entertainment , hunting as game was conceived and it did serve the purpose well of that time, however with the change in the time over years, it’s usefulness and purpose have diminished so much that in present day context , it is considered cruel to kill innocent animals for fun. I agree with the statement that hunting should not be permitted.

First of all, the purpose of hunting was to entertain, which might have made some sense when it was designed, but today there are far better means of entertainment than we had in the past, so the very basic purpose of this activity does not exist anymore, making in totally redundant in present day scenario. Therefore, hunting as game should not be permitted at all.

Secondly, when we kill some innocent animal for fun, it’s goes against the whole humanity not just that poor animal because it inculcates that sense of barbarism, which has no place in the society we live in. We always preach that we should live peacefully and stop wars which cause horrendous pains to humans all over the world and hunting is totally against the premise. Therefore, we should not support hunting at any cost.

To summarise, hunting as a means of entrainment may have had it relevancy in the past, but in the present world it has no place and should be condemned.

Why should a person who is good at kicking or hitting ball or someone who could dance or act well , make more money in few days than a doctor who helps to battle disease and cure people, a fireman who pulls people from burning buildings, a policeman who stops a crazed gunman from going on a killing spree do in several years? This questions is debated all over the world and lets discuss this question in the following paragraphs.

Though it is true that their performance affects the lives of millions of people - yes, people can get upset, but there are no real world ramifications that drastically change the lives of millions if a sports team wins or loses or if any film star’s movie bombs at the box office. However, a scientist who manages to predict the spread of the next major disease and prevents it from reaching pandemic level would not get the same kind of financial recognition. The same is true for the person who manages to cure cancer is paid quite well, but compared to footballers who make £200,000 per week is an insult to intellect. It is unfortunate that things work this way and in my opinion in a fair society sport would be entirely amateur and every athlete would have a day job and actually commit something useful to society

On the other another opinion is that sports persons and movie starts do not get paid too much money because they work out very hard everyday for fans to watch them play or act their heart out while in some jobs all you do is sit in an office with a pen with no physical effort what so ever. The stress these celebrities have to bear is huge for example dislocated shoulder, finger, broken bone etc. but yet they continue to do it. They also have kids and family members or even friends that they use this money to support.

Moreover their income earning time span is also less, most of the celebrities can earn money only for a decade or so, therefore, the money that they earn is justified.

In my opinion whatever reasons we may try to put in justification of payment of huge sums to celebrities, it’s still does not support the view that they should be paid so high while people who offer absolutely essential service to society are paid as low as they get paid at present.

Best IELTS Coaching Institutes In Chandigarh
Top IELTS Training Chandigarh