Chuỗi bài viết sưu tầm luyện thi Ielts writing part 2

Chuỗi bài viết sưu tầm luyện thi Ielts writing part 2

Cùng Mimi luyện các writing Ielts part 2 qua chuỗi sưu tầm gồm 9 bài với 9 khía cạnh khác nhau trong đời sống, hãy takenote hoặc highlight lại những cụm từ hay cấu trúc câu hay để sử dụng cho bài viết của bạn nhé!

Cre – The Forum Center

Bài 1.

In recent years, there has been a significant decline in the diversity of plant and animal species across numerous countries. What are the causes of this issue? How can it be mitigated?

The loss of plant and animal diversity across many countries is not a random natural decline. In most cases, it is the result of landcapes being simplified for human use and of ecological pressure spreading in to places that once offered refuge. Reversing the problem requires protecting connected habitats, not just individual species.

A major cause is the way land is reorganised around a single purpose. Forests become timber zones, riverss become drainage channels, and farmland becomes large areas of one crop. When that happens, species do not simply lose space. They lose breeding sites, seasonal shelter, food variety, and safe routes between habitats. Pollution worsens the damage, but so do quieter pressures such as artificial light, traffic noise, and the paving over of one dramatic event kills them, but because the ordinary conditions that support life are gradually removed.

Effective mitigation depends on treating biodiversity as a planning issue rather than a charitable afterthought. Governments should connect protected areas with wildlife corridors, restore riverbanks, and require urban rather than decorative grass alone. Farming policy also matters. Public subsidies and procurement rules can reward crop diversity, healthier soils, and reduced chemical dependence. In addition, cities can contribute far roadside verges can form part of an ecological network if they are managed with continuity in mind.

Biodiversity declines when human systems leave little room for layered, connected habitats. The most effective response is to redesign land use so that nature is built into agriculture, infrastructure, and urban growth.

Bài 2.

Some people believe that individuals can do nothing to improve the environment, and that only governments and larve companies can make a real difference. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Large environmental gains clearly depend on goverments and major companies, since they control energy systems, transport networks, and industrial standards. Even so, the claim that individuals can do nothing is too extreme. Personal choise matter, not because they solve the crisis alone, but because they shape demand, norms, and political permission for wider reform.

It is true that the biggest sources of environmental damage sit beyound the reach of any one household. A family cannot redesign the electricity grid, regulate emissions from shipping, or force manufacturers to use cleaner on a scale only states and large firms can organise. This is why climate and pollution policy cannot be reduced to telling people to recycle a little more. Without structural change, the effect of personal effort remains limited.

However, limited does not mean meaningless. Individuals influence the environment through the patterns they reward every day, including how they travel, what home they buy or rent, what food systems they support, and which political leaders the tolerate. When enough people change expectations, companies alter products and governments gain room to regulate without facing public resistance. Social habits often often move before law markets, and demand for cleaner urban transport all began as behavioural shift before they became serious business or policy decisions. Personal action is therefore best understood as a lever rather than a complete solution.

Environmental progress depends most heavily on institutions, but those institutions do not operate in a vacuum. Individuals help create the economic and political conditions in which larger change becomes possible.

Bài 3.

In education and employment, some people work harder than others. Why do some people work harder? Is it always good to word hard?

In both classrooms and workplaces, effort is distributed unevenly. Some people push themselves far beyound what is required, while others do only what is necessary. This difference is mainly driven by insecurity and reward systems, but hard work is not always beneficial because excessive effort can crowd out judgment, health, and balance.

A major reason some people work harder is thar effort often serves as proof of seriousness. In many jobs, the quality of a person’s thinking is difficult to measure directly, so visible effort becomes a signal of reliability. The same is true in education, where students learn early that diligence is uncertainty. People from competitive families, unstable labour markets, or financially fragile backgrounds mayy treat hard work as a form of protection. For them, extra effort is not only about ambition. It is a way of reducing the risk of falling behind.

Even so, constant hard work should not automatically be treated as a virtue. Beyond a certain point, more hours do not produce better decisions. Tired  students memorise without understanding, and exhausted employees become skilled at looking busy rather than solving the right problem. There is also a social cost. When institutions praise only relentless effort, they quietly normalise guilt, poor sleep, and the idea that rest must be earned. A healther standard would value sustained concentration, sensible boundaries, and the ability to stop when more labour no longer adds real value.

People often work harder because effort is rewarded and because uncertainty makes morderation feel risky. Yet the habit is only useful up to the point where it improves results. After that, it becomes waste disguised as discipline.

Bài 4.

Nowadays, news plays an important role in people’s lives, and the media is more influential than in the past. Why is this the case? Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

News now iccuppies a far more central place in daily life than it did in the past. The main reason is not simply that more informatuon exists, but that news now arrives continously through devices and platforms that are woven into work, friendship, and politics. Although this has improved access to information, the overall development is negative because influence has expanded faster than depth and responsibility.

In earlier periods, people encountered news at set times through newspapers, radio, or evening broadcasts. Today it appears all day through phones, group chats, and social platforms, often mixed with entertainment and personal conversation. That constant presence gives news unusual power over attention. In addition, digital systems select and rank stories according to likely engagement, which means emotionally charged items travel furthest. As a result, news no longer just reports events. It shapes which topics seem urgent, what language people use to discuss them, and which groups are seen as responsible or threatening.

This influence has clear benfits. Fast reporting can warn the public about danger, expose abuses, and connect local events to national debate. However, the larger effect is often harmful. Continuous updates reward highly informed about framents while understanding very little about structure or context. The result is a public mood that is alert but unstable, with attention pulled towards what is recent, vivid, and divisive. When news becomes the main organiser of public feeling, influence stops being purely informative and starts tot distort judment.

The media is more influential because news has become continous, personalised, and algorithmically amplified. Despite some democratic advantages, this expanded role is mostly negative because it encourages shallow attention with deep emotional effects.

Bài 5.

Many people put their personal and private information online, including addresses, phone numbers, and credit card details. Is this a positive or negative development?

Sharing personal information online has become routine, from booking medical appointments to storing payment details for daily purchases. This development brings obvious convenience, but overall it is negative because the benefits are memediate and pratical, while the risks are cumulative, opaque, and often permanent.

The attraction is easy to understand. When trusted systems hold accurate information, people can complete transactions quickly, recover accounts, access services remotely, and advoid repeating the same paperwork again and again. In some cases, data sharing also improves safety. Fraud can be detected faster, hospitals can verify records more efficiently, and public agencies can deliver services without forcing people to appear in person. Modern life would be slower and more fragmented if every organisation had to start from zero each time.

The problem is that data rarely stays inside the neat purpose for which it was first collected. Once stored, it can be copied, sold, combined, or breached. The danger is not limited to identity theft. A person can be judged by pattens inferred from ordinary behaviour, such as where they go, what they buy, or how often they miss payments. That kind of invisible profiling can affect loans, insurance, employment, and even reputation, yet the individual may never know how the conclusion was reached. Unlike a lost wallet, a lost data trail cannot simply be cancelled and replaced.

Putting private information online makes daily life smoother, but its also turns people into permanent records that others can interpret and trade. For that reason, the overall direction is more harmful than beneficial.