雅思作文題材

　　對於不少想要出國留學的學生來說，考雅思是少不了的一件事。下面是小編整理的一些關於的相關資料，供你參考。

　　1

　　快餐和傳統食品的區別

　　Discuss the difference between fast food and traditional food, such as nutrition, and recipe?

　　Living in a fast-paced society, the modern eaters are not longer interested in the contents of their food, but focused on whether a convenient meal is available at hand to devour. Statistics indicate that even housewives spend much shorter time at kitchen than their predecessors. This writing will compare and contrast advantages and disadvantages of fast food and traditional food.

　　Traditional food has its unshakable position in the human culture both in the social and historical context. Historically, chefs have gone to all lengths to experiment on novelties, invent cooking skills to gratify guests' hunger. Hence, traditional food has secured its incomparable value with a complex of tantalising features, including the variance, flavour, and taste. Its unique charms can nurture social relations as well. A family is accustomed to prepare a traditional feast to serve their guests at weekend or on holiday, such as Christmas.

　　Further, traditional food is favourably nutritious and balanced, compared with fast food. Dieticians have suggested audience through millions of televised courses that traditional food can retain more nutrition before being served on the table, for in general, they are cooked with a temperate heat. By contrast, the fast food are made at such a high temperature that nutrition has inescapably vaporised during the cooking process. Meanwhile, cooks pay more attention to the balance of recipe when preparing traditional food, such as combing meat with vegetable.

　　Despite a range of advantages, traditional food is overshadowed by its fast competitor in terms of time. Traditional food can consume a considerable amount of time from choosing materials, to arranging your table for visual appeal. In contrast, fast food cannot be faster when making a five-minute trip to a store around the corner, or even dialling to a fast food company. Needless to say recently, a string of fast food companies have tried their hardest to enrich the menu.

　　To summarise, traditional food has an irreplaceable role in our life, backed with various merits. However, its prevalence is declining for people are more and more time conscious.

　　Overshadow=eclipse=obscure:使黯然失色 His performance has eclipsed his predecessor's success.

　　Go to all lengths:竭盡全力地做某件事情

　　By comparison=in contrast=by contrast: 對比來說,

　　Compared with A=in contrast to A :和A對比來說,

　　On the contrary=conversely: 相反

　　2

　　公眾吸菸問題

　　The most prominent memory of my trip to Europe in 1983 was not the excitement of traveling abroad for the first time but the discomfort of flying in a smoke-filled airplane for almost six hours. Even in the non-smoking section, I was coughing and choking during the entire flight. And whenever I had to use the restroom, I had to hold my nose as I passed through the smoking area to the lavatory.

　　If I ruled the world, I would certainly outlaw cigarette smoking in all public places. Fortunately for smokers everywhere, I don't rule the world. Nevertheless, I fully support the idea behind the New York State legislature's recent bill to ban smoking in all restaurants in New York State.

　　According to the New York Times, officials in both houses of the legislature say the legislation is "very close to fruition." California is the only other state I know that has banned smoking in restaurants and bars, and despite the predictions of some restaurant owners, I haven't read any reports that restaurant attendance has fallen off significantly since the bill passed. Why should it? Food is a necessity. People need to eat.

　　Assigning designated smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants is not enough. Smoke travels quickly beyond the imaginary boundaries set up between tables and booths. As a patron, I should be able to enjoy my meal without choking on someone else's smoke. The same is true in bars and nightclubs, although I would exercise more legislative restraint in this setting because dancing and drinking are not as essential as eating. Still, why should I have to endanger my lungs just to go dancing?

　　I would ban smoking on public sidewalks and streets as well. What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business, but once you pollute the rest of the world with cancer-inducing toxic fumes, it becomes the government's business. I'm tired of asking people to put out their cigarettes or asking waiters to patrol the boundaries of their restaurant's smoking section. So if this new bill becomes law, as I hope it does, non-smokers will finally be able to enjoy their restaurant meals without having to police the artificial lines of separation that divide the two sections in restaurants.

　　3

　　控制暴力

　　The government should control the amount of violence in films and on elevision in order to decrease the violent crimes in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this issue?

　　Whether the government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to decrease the violent crimes in society involves a conflict between our right of free speech and the duty of the government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. In my view, our societal nterest in preventing the harm that exposure to violence produces takes recedence over the rights of individuals to broadcast this type of content.

　　First of all, I believe that exposure to violence does indeed cause similar behavior on the part of those who are exposed to it. Although we may not have conclusive scientific evidence of a cause-effect relationship, ample anecdotal evidence establishes a significant correlation. Moreover, both common sense and our experiences with children inform us that people tend to mimic the behavior they are exposed to.

　　Secondly, I believe that violence is indeed harmful to a society. The harm it produces is, in my view, both palpable and profound. For the individual, it has a debasing impact on vital human relationships; for the society, it promotes a tendency toward antisocial behavior. Both outcomes, in turn, tear apart the social fabric that holds a society together.

　　Those who advocate unbridled individual expression might point out that the right of free speech is intrinsic to a democracy and necessary to its urvival. Even so, this right is not absolute, nor is it the most critical element. In my assessment, the interests served by restricting violence in broadcast media are, on balance, more crucial to the survival of a society.

　　In sum, it is in our best interest as a society for the government to censor broadcast media for violence. Exposure to such media content tends to harm society and its citizenry in ways that are worth preventing, even in light of the resulting infringement of our right of free expression.