1.

With the world in such economic turmoil (ri lon, hn ln), many of us face
difficult choices in managing our money. Personally, I feel that saving is
preferable to (=suitable to: thch hp, c thch hn) high spending, and I will
explain why. Firstly, saving money is a sensible precaution in a world where the
future is uncertain. It is possible, for example, that a person might meet
unemployment, ill health or other crises at some point in life. It is essential to have
some funds in reserve for these situations, and saving is for most people
the only way to achieve this. Furthermore, I believe that saving is itself a good
discipline for people to develop, as it builds skills of planning and reaching targets.
We can see this in the way that disciplined people (c k lut, c nguyn tc)
build up quite large sums through small monthly contributions to savings plans. In
many cases this meets important objectives in their lives, including large purchases
such as cars or
property. Finally, we have to remember the reasons for the current economic
problems besetting the world. The crisis was caused by excessive spending and
insufficient saving not just by individuals, but by corporations and even
governments themselves. I feel that an emphasis on sensible saving should be a
universal strategy now. I do appreciate that some people think differently, saying
that it is better to live for the moment and spend accordingly. While some daily
spending is essential, of course, I feel this is a potentially unwise viewpoint,
especially considering recent global events.
To conclude, I believe that saving is the wiser course, not just for financial but also
for personal and political reasons. Sensible saving is an invaluable skill and a
buffer against uncertainty
2.
In the future, it seems more difficult to live on the Earth. Some people think
more money
should be spent on researching other planet to live, such as Mars. To what extent
do you
agree or disagree with this statement?

Advances in technology make the prospect to find the second Earth potentially
viable. While I agree that terrestrial life has become increasingly difficult, I do not
believe that we should invest money in finding a new planet to live on.
On the one hand, there is no doubt that life is not as easy as it was in the past. The
main problem is the growing level of environmental pollution that adversely
affects (nh hng tiu cc/xu) humankind in all parts of the world. The rising
consumption of natural resources such as gas, oil and coal has resulted in an
enormous amount of carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere,
which impairs (lm yu/ suy yu i) the air quality and accelerates (increase)
climate change. The consequences of this are grave. People in many big cities are
suffering respiratory diseases (bnh v h hp); more lands are being shrunk due
to
the rise of sea levels; and there are frequent heat waves in tropical countries.
Apparently, human life is now put in danger.
On the other hand, I would contend that spending money finding another home for
all creatures on the Earth is not an effective measure. There is little hope of seeking
a planet that has favorable conditions (iu kin thun li) for life while the
expenditure (vic s dng/ tiu dng) can be extremely huge. In contrast, a much
better solution would be that we should invest in environmental projects and
encourage people to lead a more environmentally friendly lifestyle. For example,
green energy should be harnessed (khai thc, s dng) and made more available to
reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and individuals ought to opt for (choose,
option) public transport rather than driving their vehicles. Such actions can cut
exhaust emissions and slow down the effects of global warming, making the earth
a more desirable place for us all.
In conclusion, although global warming is a global malady, it seems ludicrous to
suggest that people should find another planet to settle down.

3.
It is suggested that everyone wants to have a car, a television and a fridge. Do
disadvantages of this development for society outweigh advantages?

It is true that almost everyone wants a car, a TV and a fridge as some of the basic essentials of
a good lifestyle. Despite the benefits, I believe that on a long-term view these are outweighed by
the disadvantages.
On the one hand, the growing consumption of cars, televisions and fridges has several benefits.
At its simplest, the rise of the consumer society stimulates economic growth. The increasing
sales figures of cars and household equipment are often associated with more jobs and wealth
being created for society. Another advantage is that people can have a higher standard of living
than before. Travelling on the road is no longer tedious because individuals can sit in a car,
listening to music and enjoying the comfort of air conditioning. In the same way, people may
watch television to relax or to gain knowledge, and fridges help them preserve food longer
without being stale.
On the other hand, I believe that the above benefits are outweighed by potential problems.
Primarily, the use of cars is often held responsible for environmental pollution. Exhaust
emissions from automobiles impair the air quality and consequently affect peoples health. For
example, in many big cities in the world, urban citizens are suffering from chronic respiratory
problems due to the poor air quality. Using fridges and televisions also places a pressure on
electricity supply in the world. The growing use of these devices in the home merely compounds
the problem of insufficient electricity that has become intractable in many parts of the world.
In conclusion, taking a long-term perspective, I would argue that the drawbacks of this trend
outweigh the advantages