• MÀU XANH: BÀI VỀ NHÀ

• MÀU ĐỎ: BÀI ĐÃ ĐƯỢC CHỮA

• MÀU VÀNG: GHI CHÉP CẦN THIẾT

Overall, the consumption of fast food increased during this period; hamburgers and fish and chips became more popular, while pizza saw a decline.

• Đồ thị miêu tả việc tiêu thụ đồ ăn nhanh có xu hướng tăng, ngoại trừ trường hợp của pizza.

• The graphs demonstrating fast food consumption saw an upward trend, except for the case of pizza.

• largest - smallest

There are three types of fast food in the graph: hamburgers, fish and chips, and pizza.

Pizza consumption started at a peak of 300 grams in 1970. This gradually decreased year by year, to 210 grams at the end of the period in 1990. This shows that people started to prefer other types of fast food more than pizza.

Start + biến động + chốt

For hamburgers, From There was a slight increase in hamburgers' consumption in the 5 early years. From 1970 to 1987, the consumption rose from 30 grams to 280 grams. This gradual growth shows that more people started to enjoy hamburgers during this time. Fish and chips also had a similar pattern. The consumption increased slowly from 80 grams in 1970 to about 210 grams in 1982. This steady rise indicates that fish and chips and hamburger became popular choices. After 1982, both hamburgers and fish and chips experienced strong growth. Hamburger consumption boomed, reaching about 290 grams by 1990. Fish and chips also surged, reaching a peak of 500 grams. This shows that hamburgers and fish and chips gained popularity, while pizza declined. This reflects changing tastes among the UK population over a period of 20 years.

In conclusion, the graph highlights that over the twenty year period, hamburgers and fish and chips became more popular, while pizza declined. This shows a shift in the food preferences of people in the UK.

^{- starting from 1970.}

Overview: trend + largest/smallest

Overall, the amount of Fish and Chips consumed per week experienced the most dramatic change ^increase during the research ^surveyed period. Additionally, while the amount of Hamburger and Fish and Chips eaten both rose significantly, there was a slight decrease in the figure for pizza.

In the period 1970-1980, the graph illustrates that pizza consumption was peaked ahead of the others. but declined from 300 grams to 220 grams. Over the next 10 years, pizza consumption fluctuated slightly, falling from 220 grams to 200 grams in 1985, and increasing slightly to 210 grams before reaching a plateau in 1990.

In 1980, Hamburger and Fish and Chips began with low consumption amounts of 20 grams and 80 grams, respectively. Both of them underwent a moderate rise + time , but the former saw a more significant rise, reaching a peak at 500 grams at the end of the period and leading the consumption. The latter, although there was a slight upturn from 90 grams to 110 grams in 1985, there was a sharp increase ending the period at just over 290 grams.

Overall, the graph indicates major shifts in fast food consumption. Fish and chips grew the most, but pizza declined in popularity. Hamburgers also saw a steady increase during this time.

In 1970, pizza had the highest consumption, beginning at roughly 300 grams per week, while fish and chips and hamburgers began significantly lower, at around 100 grams and 20 grams, respectively. Pizza consumption gradually decreased over the next 20 years, reaching around 200 grams by 1990.

Hamburger consumption significantly grew, from 20 grams in 1970 to over 100 grams in 1980. Then there was a rapid increase, with approximately 300 grams by 1990. Fish and chips followed a similar trend, remaining constant at around 100 grams until the mid-1980s, when they skyrocketed to 500 grams by the conclusion of the period. This made fish and chips the most popular fast food in 1990.

Overall, we can see that there was an upward trend in how much hamburger and fish & chips were eaten in the UK, while the figure for pizza fell. It is also noticeable that hamburger was the most unpopular kind of fast food most of the time.

Looking at the chart for further details, In 1970, the amount of pizza consumed dominated the chart, with 300 grams. After that, the UK witnessed a considerable drop in that of pizza before remaining unchanged from 1983 to the last year, with 200 grams.

Regarding other types of fast food, in the beginning, the consumption of fish & chips was two times higher than the figure for hamburgers—80 grams compared to 40 grams, followed by a gradual rise in the next 10 years. After that, the former started to grow dramatically and then took the leading position since 1982, ending with 500 grams. In the meantime, the latter leveled out before experiencing a significant increase in 1985 until the year 1990, reaching 300 grams.

Upload bài lồng tiếng ĐỂ MÀU XANH BLUE

Bài nào được cô chữa rồi cô sẽ tự chuyển sang màu ĐỎ.

Overview, the main point of fastfood consumed is upward trend. Fish vs chips consumed increased steeply and replaced pizza to become the highest figure. In addition, pizza experienced a marginal fall and got the lowest proportion in the end of period.

In the 1970, pizza had highest consumption at 300 gram. At the same time, fish vs chips expenditure was lower than pizza at about 90 gram while humberger was lowest, just 20gram. Pizza which had the highest proportion at 300 gram in the first period then dropped gradually to about 200 gram and got lowest proportion in the end of period.

Over the course of 17 years, humberger went up minimally from 20 to 110 gram. Similar to that, fish vs chips also had a marginal growth from 1970 to 1982 and the consumption of this had an increase of 60 gram. In the last period, both of them had an upsurge, while the former achieved 500 gram and the latter increased about 200 gram

overall, the trend was upward, except pizza. Hamburger is the highest position at graphs

It can be seen that, there was different from 3 kinds of fast food in UK. Hamburger and fish & chips was stared from the bottom. Hamburger was stared from 20 grams, fish and chips started from 90 grams. But pizza started from 300 grams. In 1970 to 1975, pizza maintain stability and decline minimal. But in 5 years later, pizza was plummeted to over 200 grams. The opposite that period, 1980-1990 pizza was stable at 200 grams

In 1970-1980 period, the graphs demonstrates the increase of hamburger. In 1970 hamburger stared from the bottom at 20 grams and increase minimal to 100 grams at 1985. After stable and grew minimal, hamburger was surged from 1985-1990. And reached a peak at 300 grams. The same with hamburger fish and chips also started from the bottom and increased slightly in the following years. from 90 increase to 170 grams between 1970-1980. Over the next 10 years showed a sharp increase from 170-500 grams. After all, fish and chips reached the highest position at graphs.

Overall, the amount of fast food consumed per week experienced the most dramatic increased during the surveyed period. In the provided period, there was an upward trend in how much Hamburger and Fish & Chips were eaten in the UK, while the figure for Pizza fell.

In 1970-1980, the graph illustrates Pizza consumption was ahead of the others. Over the next 10 years, Pizza consumption falling from 220 grams to 200 grams in 1985, and increasing slightly to 210 grams before reaching a plateau in 1990.

In 1980, Hamburger and Fish and Chips began with low consumption amounts of 20 grams and 80 grams, respectively. Both of them underwent a moderate rise in 1980, but the former saw a more significant rise, reaching a peak at 500 grams at the end of the period and leading the consumption. The latter, although there was a slight upturn from 90 grams to 110 grams in 1985, there was a sharp increase ending the period at just over 290 grams.

Overall, the 2 sectors of hamburger and fish and chips reflected upward trend , on the contrary pizza showed the downward trend and after 20 years Fish and chips replaced pizza to became the sector with the highest consumption

In 1970 pizza had the highest consumption with 300g while burger, fish and chips had a lower consumption with 90g and 30g.

As we can see that the pizza sections started at the highest consumption with 300g in 1970. But between 1970 and 1980, Pizza sections had a decrease from 300g to 200g and still falling to 200g in 1985, in 1990 pizza section had no change and became the lowest consumption

Burger started at the lowest consumption.

From 1970 to 1982, burger section increased from 30g to 100g and it started to leaped in 1987 and reach 150g. At the end of 1990, burger got 300g consumption and stayed at the top 2.

Fish and chips started at the second consumption. From 1970 to 1980 , it increased from 90g to 160g. Specially in 1982, fish and chips section experienced a boomed when it overcame the pizza section and still increased to the end of 1990 when it reached 500g and got the top1 of fast food consumption by the UK population.

Overall, there were significant changes in the consumption of these foods during the given period. Hamburger, Fish & Chips saw noticeable increases, while Pizza experienced a sharp decline.

In 1970, Hamburger, Fish & Chips both started low at under 100g – almost bottom while the pizza were the most popular, with an average consumption of around 300 grams per week. However, the plunged  was particulary noticeable over the decade from 1970 to 1985 and showed signs of a more gradual decline in subsequent years.. After 5 years since 1985, the amount of fastfood consumed has maintained at 200g.

Although hamburgers and fish & chips started at under 100 grams, both types of fast surged from 1970 to 1980. Hamburgers increased and more gently in 1980 to 1985 and most strongly in the next 5 years, climbing to 300g. By 1990, Fish&Chips had become the most consumed fast food among of the three foods, reverse and surpass pizza with figures exceeding 500g per week.

Overall, the graphs demonstrating fast food consumption saw an upward trend, except for the case of pizza.

In 1970, the amount of pizza consumed began at a notable peak of 300 grams. However, this figure saw a significant decline over the following years, plunging steadily until 1982. By the end of this period, pizza consumption had stabilized at 200 grams

Hamburger intake started at lowest point with 30 grams and increased slightly until 1987 at 280 grams. Fish and chips followed a similar pattern, with consumption increasing from 80 grams in 1970 to about 210 grams in 1982. After 1982, hamburger consumption surged, reaching about 290 grams by 1990, and fish and chips peaked at 500 grams.

The graph  shows that the amount of Fish & Chips consumed per week had the most significant change over the period. Moreover, while the amount of Hamburger and Fish & Chips consumed both increased significantly, the amount of pizza decreased slightly.

In 1970, pizza consumption peaked at over 300 grams, while hamburger consumption was significantly lower at around 30 grams. During this time, around 80 grams of fish and chips were eaten by people in the UK. By 1985, pizza consumption had declined slightly, reaching a low of 200 grams, while the other two figures were increasing.

In 1990, the weekly consumption of Fish & Chips surged to 500 grams, making it the highest number on the graph, while the amount of Hamburger saw a small increase to around 300 grams. Meanwhile, the quantity of Pizza consumed stayed constant at approximately 200 grams.

2.C

3.F

4.D

5.A

6.E

7. safety

8. traffic

9. carriageway

10. mobile

11. dangerous

12. communities

13. healthy

On the flip side, living with parents helps strengthen family bond. As society evolves, many young people choose busy places for studying or work. Some parents hide their health problems from their children because they worry about being a financial burden. However, living together allows both parents and children to support each other emotionally and physically. In Japan, many elderly people die without their children knowing because they live far apart, which forces elder people to continue working.

Advocate of young people who can leave home can learn many social skills. Because of living under control from parents who interfere too deeply in their children's lives, they will be feel stuffy and self-conscious, depend on parents. So if young adults can live separately to get many opportunities to learn financial management, improve how to manage their money and solve problems. Admittedly, stepping out of the comfort zone brings challenges, but these are the things which they can know valuable experiences, more confident and be responsible in their lives. It’s likened to Children living in the West will tend to be more mature both internally and externally than in the East as they are encouraged to live independently from a young age.

On the flip side, if young adults stay at home with their family, they may be can't worried about still financial issues such as paying for accommodation, education, food because parents can pay for this and keep them safety. In addition, parents usually support for both mental health and physical health, so they can be more confident to show opinion and improve strengthen family bonds, when generations gap can shorter, young people can confide in their parents when needed. In Milan, Marco, a software engineer despite having a stable job and high salary, he still lived with his parents until he was nearly 35 years old, so he could save money and invest more in himself.

In a nutshell, young people need to choose the place which can made them glow up and comfortable.

_HOOK

_PARAPHRASE

_{THESIS: cho nguời ta biết thân bài em viết nội dung gì bằng những cụm danh từ ngắn}

In recent year, multigenerational households has become a popular issue for the general public. Proponents agree that youth should live independently of parents, while the opponents of this viewpoint contend that young people should live with parents. This essay will discuss these points/views before giving my opinion, which posits .... (

thân

On the flip side, advocates believe that young people living with their parents will be emotionally fulfilled. They can receive ^{mental support from their beloved parents}. the support of mentally. In essence, family is an important factor in each person's journey. Living alone can be free or comfortable for young people but it only appears for a short and certain period of time. As time goes ^by on, people will soon miss their sheltered home. lonely when they live alone. For example, living with parents, young people can share about the difficulties in there lives; they will be listened to and receive advice from their parents. Admittedly, there is still a group of young people who believe that they don’t need the support mentally from their parents, and they can overcome problems in life, but they can easily ^{are more likely to/seem to} encounter mental health problems. In some studies, the number of young people suffering from mental illnesses in VN is increasing because they have to leave home and live alone to make ends meet.

On the one hand, advocates of young adults leaving home often tout the maturity that independent living can bring to support their argument. They argue that the journey will help young people to be more mature in their thinking and actions than staying at home. Although young people face challenges and countless hardships when they leave home early, it will help them a lot in developing themselves, gradually becoming experienced people, and knowing how to take responsibility for their own thoughts. Successful entrepreneurs like Jack Ma proved this by achieving great success after leaving home at a young age. Admittedly, stepping out of their comfort zone is difficult, but the life lessons they learn are invaluable.

On the other hand, those who support staying home for young people argue that this will help young people avoid going down the path of vice. In essence, living with parents can be likened to a safety net. Youth who leave home without life experience and parental supervision are more likely to susceptible to bad influences and dangerous activities, such as drugs or alcohol consumption, which may jeopardize their career or lead them astray from moral values. In turn, the bond between family members is strengthened, and the affection between each person becomes stronger. The report said that the Rate of Addiction in the United States in 2023 is still a serious problem, with North America having the highest rate of drug use in the world, accounting for 16.6% of the population. Therefore, the independent life of young people will strengthen the bond within the family.

In a nutshell, whether young adults choose to move out or remain at home depends more on their unique situations and priorities rather than a universal solution. As long as their decisions support personal development and well-being, the type of living arrangement—whether with family or independently—has little effect on the result. The main focus should be on building self-reliance and a strong sense of identity, regardless of where they live.

The side that advocates for young people to be independent argues that youth need to have life experience to be successful. In fact, when they step out into society, they will be given many opportunities to try all kinds of interesting activities, something that people who are overly controlled by their parents will find it difficult to have. Therefore, they both gain valuable experience and form great qualities such as patience and kindness. For example, in Vietnam today, university students tend to find part-time jobs to both earn extra income and accumulate useful skills for the future job application process. In short, separating oneself from the separating circle of parents will help young people open their eyes to the miracles of life, thereby motivating them to succeed.

On the contrary, those who oppose the above idea believe that staying with their parents is the only way for their children to be fully happy both mentally and physically. The reason for this point of view is simply because parents think they can take good care of their children by providing finances and staying by their children's side anytime, anywhere. Additionally, people who live under family discipline seem to be less likely to encounter social evils than others. An example for this is that Asian parents are always famous for being extremely protective of their children because they will even panic if they see their child have a scratch.

Therefore, it can be said that staying with family is a way to possess the best conditions, which will help young people maintain a happy life. In summary, each side of opinion has its own reasonable reasons. However, it seems that the idea of ​​living independently is more reasonable because of its importance to young people.

Advocates of young adults leaving home often emphasize the maturity that independent living fosters, allowing them to develop many essential life skills for the future. They argue that facing and overcoming challenges independently, and thus learning valuable lessons, is more beneficial than receiving guidance and pre-arranged experiences from their parents. An overly protective family environment can deprive young adults of exciting and new opportunities. Living alone requires individuals to be adaptable, proactive in learning new skills, take responsibility for their behavior, and manage their time and finances effectively. All of these skills are invaluable for each individual's future. For example, Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple, left home at 17 and faced financial hardships while living independently. These challenges helped him develop resilience, creativity, and resourcefulness, which later contributed to his success in building Apple. Although living alone can present many difficulties, and failure is a possibility, the experiences gained are priceless and essential. After failure, individuals can recover and move forward with valuable lessons for the future.

On the flip side, proponents of staying at home argue that it provides young adults with a sense of safety, helping them avoid potential risks associated with societal problems. Living at home allows parents to monitor their children's behavior and provide timely guidance or intervention if they encounter difficult situations, such as peer pressure, substance abuse, or unhealthy relationships. For example, actress and philanthropist Taylor Swift often spoke about the importance of her family during her teenage years, crediting them with providing a stable environment that allowed her to focus on her music career without the distractions and pressures of living alone. In this controlled environment, young adults are less exposed to dangerous influences or risky behaviors that they might face when living independently. Additionally, having the family's emotional support and advice readily available enables young adults to make better, more informed decisions in critical moments. This protection from social issues can give them the time and security needed to develop a strong foundation before stepping out into the world on their own.

In conclusion, the choice for young adults to leave home or stay with their families should be based on individual circumstances and priorities. While independence fosters personal growth, living at home provides essential safety and support. Ultimately, both options can lead to successful adulthood; what matters most is that young adults make choices that promote their well-being and development. This allows them to thrive regardless of their living situation.

Overall, an upward trend was the main characteristic of book spending in 4 countries surveyed. Over the given period, Germans were always spent the most on books, while Italians replaced Austrians as the least buyers.

From 1995 to 1999, Germany and Austria had the same uniform spending on books: increased 10 million dollars. The graph illustrates book expenditure in Germany was reserved, fell from 90 million dollars to 85 million dollars, then recovered and increased to about 95 million dollars before reaching a plateau. The money spent on books in Austria stayed constant for 2 years (about 40 million dollars) and had a sharply increase with a cusp of about 75 million dollars in 2005.

The book expenditure in France rose gradually, except the period between 1995 and 2001 had an upsurge from 55 million dollars to 70 million dollars. In contrast, the book spending in Italy fluctuated wildly, then went up by more than 60 million dollars, the peak and the bottom observed were approximately 55 million dollars in 1997 and 50 million dollars in 2005.

Overall, all country bellow reflected the upward trend and the German spent the most on book after 10 years.  Although started at the lowest, Austria over came Italy and stayed at the top 3

In 1995, Germany started at the highest money spent on book with 80 million dollars while Austria showed the contradiction when it began at the lowest money spent on book with 30 million dollars. Both of these countries increased 10 million dollars at 1990. But Germany had a fluctuate after 1990 when it decreased by 85 million dollars and then recovered and reached million dollars in 2005. After 1995, Austria had an increase before experienced a boomed when it went up from 40 to 60 million dollars and reached 71 million dollars at the last period

About Italy and France, both of these countries started quite close together at 50 and 55 million dollars respectively. While France still kept stable when it increased to 69 million dollar in 2005, Italy showed a variation when it grew to 55 million dollars fell back to 55 million dollars after 4 years. Although it went up to 61 million dollars at the end of the period, in 2003 it was over come by Austria and stayed at the lowest money spent on book still the end of the period

First of all, the countryside is a very quiet and unpolluted place not like the city. Rural areas are less polluted with vehicle exhaust as well as industrial emissions. The residents of the countryside can cultivate their own vegetables and fruits meaning they have a steady supply of nutritious food. Moreover, people living in the country do not have to deal with as much pressure as there is in towns and cities since it is not as noisy. Many people in rural areas walk more often because places are close by, which helps them stay active.

On the other hand, cities offer many healthcare services that are not available in the countryside. In the cities, there are more hospitals, clinics, and doctors, so whenever people need medical attention, they are likely to get doctors. Besides these, people in the city also do not find it difficult to get physical exercises, as there are more of gyms, sports centers and parks. A few others, however, believe that it is more advantageous to live in urban areas because one can participate in various health programs and workshops aimed at promoting healthy living.

Thus, living in the countryside will mean a healthy way of life because of the fresh air and less emotional stress. Both have advantages, so the choice depends on personal choice

Advocate of  people who living in the countryside often tout the benefits when they can get a opportunity to blending with nature. It is often associated with clean air, less noise pollution and a slower pace of life. The air here is fresher than city, so that is the reason why some peopke have gone back to their hometowns to find things that can help them both mental health and physical health. In addition, it is easy to approach natural ingredients to make medicine, help people treat the diseases in a benign and safe way.

On the flip side, cities provide easier acces to healthcare facilities, fitness centers and specialized medical treatments. With the development of modern city, smart devices will start up and support doctor to find dieases and give them the best solution. Moreover, city where focus on the qualified doctors for medical examination and treatment. For example, some people who have badly diease often go to center hospital.

In a nutshell, everywhere has its own advantages, so people can choose the place which suit for their money, convenient to stay a healthy lifestyle and cut down on the risk of dieases.

On the one hand, there are several reasons why people support the idea of ​​having healthy lifestyle in the countryside is more easy. Firstly, the clean enviroment. This is because the outside city provides fresh air and avoids the populating. So that, we can avoid respiratory diseases. Secondly, the availability of clean food. Many rural areas have access to fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as organic products. This means that people can eat healthier diets, which is essential for maintaining good health.

On the other hand, some people believe that living in cities is a better approach. Firstly, the high quality of healthcare. Cities often have advanced medical facilities and specialists, which can be crucial for people who need regular medical attention or emergency care. Additionally, cities provide many opportunities for physical activity. There are many fitness places, such as: gyms, parks, and other facilities where people can exercise. Many cities also have walking paths and bike lanes, encouraging people to stay active.

From my point of view, living in cities has more health advantages because of its convinient, that I can find fitness places anwhere and receive quality medical service so that I can easily maintain and strengthen my well- being.

In conclusion, both views are reasonable. Some people think that staying in the countryside is better due to impoluted atmosphere and fresh food while others support staying in cities for keep their mental health and there are so many activities places. However, I personally believe that living in the cities is more reasonable because of the reasons mentioned.

Advocates of living in countryside often said that people can have the clean and good air which is very necessary for health. Agree that with the strong development of society, tall buildings begin to appear, life will be better and more modern, but with them the air will be more polluted.But live In the countryside, the air is usually fresher because there is less smoke, dust, and pollution compared to the city. Trees, open spaces, and fewer vehicles contribute to a clean and airy environment, improving respiratory health and providing a more pleasant atmosphere. According to several reports and studies, most lung cancer cases are caused by inhaling excessive harmful smoke and dust, with the majority of patients living in large cities like Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City.It can be said that, live in countryside is not as convenients and modern as cities, but the atmosphere is very good for people.

On the flip side, living in the city will be more convenient for people who live healthy lives because there are have more choices in medical and health services. Such as health centers, gym, fitness center and especially is smart devices and health tech. City dwellers can easily access and use smart health devices like fitness trackers, smart scales, and mobile health apps to monitor and improve their wellness routines. Living in the countryside often provides benefits like fresh air and close proximity to nature. However, it also limitations for people in health monitoring and care with smart devices. That is the reason why people who live in countryside will go to the city for examination when they have any health problems.

On the one hand, living in cities may be associated with improved health outcomes due to the availability of contemporary medical services. Urban locations often have a large number of hospitals, clinics, and specialized healthcare providers, making it easier for residents to obtain medical care when necessary. For example, Copenhagen, Denmark, has a very good public healthcare system and inhabitants have easy access to medical services. Additionally, cities often offer various fitness facilities, recreational programs, and public health campaigns for people to engage in health-conscious behaviors. As a result, this immediate access to healthcare can lead to early treatment of health issues, ultimately contributing to a healthier population. 

Conversely, advocates for countryside living argue that the natural environment significantly contributes to overall well-being. Rural areas tend to have cleaner air, less pollution, and more green spaces, which promote physical and mental health. While city life is frequently fast-paced, the countryside is quite contrary, hence people in the countryside often have fewer mental health issues. Additionally, residents in rural areas often participate in outdoor activities such as hiking, gardening, and farming, which can enhance physical fitness and mental clarity. That's why this connection between people and nature can lead to a more balanced and healthier lifestyle overall.

In conclusion, living in cities and the countryside both have health benefits. Cities offer advanced medical care and many fitness options, while rural areas provide a peaceful environment that supports well-being. I believe the choice between city and country living depends on personal preferences and lifestyles. In the end, both can promote a healthy lifestyle

Supporters of rural lifestyles highlight several benefits associated with living in the countryside. One major advantage is the proximity to nature, which creates a tranquil environment. In rural areas, the air is often cleaner, and residents can access fresh, organic produce. For instance, many farmers’ markets in the countryside provide locally grown fruits and vegetables, which promote healthier eating. Additionally, the slower pace of life in the countryside can lead to reduced stress levels, as individuals often engage in outdoor activities such as hiking or gardening.

Advocates for urban living, on the other hand, highlight the numerous health benefits that cities provide. Urban locations often feature excellent medical facilities with cutting-edge technology, giving citizens better access to healthcare. For example, city hospitals may include specialist sections for severe health concerns like cancer therapy or cardiac care, which are not always available in rural areas. Furthermore, cities have a diverse range of workout facilities, parks, and wellness initiatives. Many cities feature public parks with running tracks, health programs, and community sports leagues to encourage an active lifestyle. This increased access to modern healthcare and recreational options improves overall well-being.

In my opinion, urban living is preferable due to its superior healthcare resources and lifestyle options. While the countryside may offer tranquility, serious health issues are often better addressed in urban areas. The availability of specialists and advanced medical equipment in cities ensures that individuals receive prompt and effective treatment. For example, a person with a heart condition may need immediate care that is more readily available in a city hospital than in a rural clinic. Additionally, the variety of fitness options available in urban environments promotes a culture of health and wellness. Cities frequently offer gyms, yoga studios, and cycling groups that encourage people to keep active and healthy.

In conclusion, both rural and urban living have their unique advantages. The choice between the two ultimately depends on individual needs and preferences, as each lifestyle offers distinct benefits that can cater to different aspirations and priorities.

On the one hand, advocates of rural living argue that it promotes a healthier lifestyle by providing access to natural remedies. This is largely due to the fresh, unpolluted air in the countryside, free from the emissions of vehicles and factories—a significance factor in preserving human health. While rural residents may need to travel long distances to reach hospitals, they require medical attention less frequently, sometimes only visiting a doctor every few years. Studies indicate that illness rates in rural areas of England are lower compared to urban areas. As a result, living in the countryside not only offers a peaceful environment but also provides significant health benefits.

On the other hand, proponents of urban living often tout the significant advantages that cities offer for maintaining a healthy lifestyle. They argue that cities are more conducive to stable health compared to rural areas. Despite the serious issue of environmental pollution in large cities, advancements in science and technology have led to more widespread availability of medical treatments and equipment, as well as the discovery of new antibiotics to combat various diseases. For instance, while air pollution has caused severe health issues like lung cancer, modern medical technologies have enabled scientists to develop effective treatments, helping to extend patients' lives. Although urban environments may not be as clean as rural ones, the medical care and conveniences available in cities provide substantial benefits to residents.

In summary, whether individuals decide to reside in the city or the countryside for their health largely depends on their personal needs and priorities, rather than a one-size-fits-all answer. As long as their choice promotes both physical and mental well-being, the type of living situation—whether with family or independently—should have minimal influence on the result. The key is identifying which environment best suits their body, regardless of their location.

We can see from this pie chart that the overall trend of both thrillers and horror was downward. From 2003 to 2008, thrillers experienced a decrease of about one fourth. Horror filmset also dropped from nearly 20 to about 7 percent in the same period.

Thrillers decreased slightly from nearly half in 2003 to over a quarter in 2008. Horror movies also decreased from nearly 20 percent to about 7 percent.

In 2003-2008, documentary had a minimal increase from nearly 15 percent to over 20 percent. The proportion of romance went up ...

We can see from the pie chart = As can be seen from the charts/ It is obvious from the charts that the percentage of thrillers accounted for almost half of all Oscars in 2003, but this amount decreased to nearly a third in 2008. The proportion of horror that won Oscars in 2003 accounted for nearly 20 percent and slightly decreased to about 7 percent in 2008. There was a slight increase from 5 percent to 10 percent in the percentage of romance winning Oscars between 2003 and 2008.

We can see from the pie chart, that the percentage of thriller decreased from almost a half in 2003 to nearly a third in 2008. Horror slightly decreased from 20% to about 7% over the period.

Documentary, romance, and science fiction films all grew their share of Oscars between 2003 and 2008 . The percentage of documentary and romantic increased minimally in this period. There was a double increase from about 10% to 20% in the proportion of oscar winner by Science fiction. After 5 years action films doubled from a half of quarter to nearly a thirds.

We can see from the pie chart = As can be seen from the charts/ It is obvious from the charts that the percentage of thrillers accounted for almost half of all Oscars in 2003, but this amount decreased to nearly a third in 2008. The proportion of horror that won Oscars in 2003 accounted for nearly 20 percent and slightly decreased to about 7 percent in 2008. There was a slight increase from 5 percent to 10 percent in the percentage of romance winning Oscars between 2003 and 2008.

In 1980, we can see from the pie chart that two fifths percent of graduates start to work. By 1990 this number had increased to half and and climbed with 5% in the next 10 years. The proportion of secondary school graduates continue further education was the most in 1980 but decreased from a half to thirty seven over the couse of 20-year period. There are

insignificant changes in the graduates who were unemployed, almost just under a quarter.In conclusion, there was a clear rise in employment among Australian graduates between 1980 and 2000, while fewer graduates continued their studies, and the unemployment rate remained low throughout.

In 2004, approximately half of people go to university by car but this number was decreased nearly a quarter to twenty eight percent in next 5 year. Over the decade from 2004 to 2009, we can see from the pie chart that the proportion of people who traverlling to one university have an upward trend from just over a third to approximately half. Insignificant changes between three remaining vehicles. There was a slight increase in the number of people go to university by train and walking, more people use bicycle in 2009 than 2004.

Nowadays, where distractions and dangers lurk at every corner, parents should impose strict curfews on their teenage children for several reasons.

Firstly, a strict curfew gives parents some peace of mind. Parents may worry about their children's safety. WHY? WHAT? HOW?

potential risks: social evils, foolish decisions after 10 p.m

HOW: on time

Secondly, it is essential for physical and mental health. Teenagers need to get enough sleep to recharge their energy .... and have a positive spirit to study.

In conclusion, strict curfews are essential for ensuring teen safety, providing peace of mind for parents, and supporting overall health and development.

Social media plays a significant role in modern life, helping teens connect with their friends and express themselves. It is more common and easy for teenagers to share their thoughts, ideas, and creativity on social platforms, which can boost their confidence and a sense of identity.

Moreover, social media can be a valuable tool for learning. Many teenagers use it to access information, join online study groups, and follow educational content that can enhance their knowledge. By allowing their children to use social media, parents can help them acquire essential skills, such as digital communication and critical thinking.

In conclusion, social media is a useful platform for teenagers' connection and learning. Rather than limiting access, parents should promote healthy habits and communication regarding social media use.

We can see from this pie chart that only trend of car was downward. Between 2004 and 2009, car experienced a important decrase from over a half to 28 percent. Conveserly, bus with 33 percent in first period was went up remarkalely of 13 percent in 2009. Bicycle also had an increase of 7 percent in a period of 5 years. Train and walking consist of a small proportion but there was a slight increase.

Đang có tranh cãi về việc bố mẹ có nên giới nghiêm con cái ko. Tôi thì cho rằng nên vì những lý do sau.

Firstly, strict regulations give the parents some peace of mind. Sự yên tâm này đến từ việc thấy con cái ở nhà vào specific time. Studies show that the rate of children under strict parental control are less likely to get involved in vices compared to those without severe parental supervision.

(lập luận ko ổn) In addition, strictly limiting time for adolescent children is for their empathy. One reason behind this is that parental control not only helps children have more time for themselves but also helps them care more about the people around them.

Finally, imposing strict curfews on youngsters teaches them time-management skills. This is true when teens learn how to make time for themselves and their daily activities by organizing them properly through a schedule.

Biết được giới hạn thời gian về nhà yêu cầu trẻ phải học cách sắp xếp thời gian biểu của mình phù hợp. Điều này không những tăng hiệu quả công việc mà chúng phải làm mà còn ......

In short, strict curfews are essential for teenagers as they promote safety, time management, and overall well-being. Parents should impose clear curfews to support their children's healthy development.

firstly, curfews can ensure their children's safely Nowadays, here are many dangers for children, especially after curfew hours like over 9pm,10pm. parents have a curfew will help children preventing from encountering dangerous situations such as accidents, social vices, or harmful individuals late at night. Because at night there will be more evils and dangers than during the day.

  Some people believe that parents should put strict curfews on their children, while others think that it is not necessary. I believe that strict curfews can be helpful for young people and have positive impacts on them.

 First of all, enforcing strict curfews helps parents safeguard their children. In the evening, many social evils and threats emerge, such as exposure to stimulants, being lured into illegal activities, or traffic accidents. Teenagers who are in puberty will be curious about everything around them and explore themselves; therefore, they may easily be attracted and make some unwise decisions. Therefore, limiting time when they go out can reduce dangerous situations that they can face.

 In addition, strict curfews also instill a sense of responsibility in teenagers. For example, when they grow up, they will no longer be under their parents' control and may tend to let themselves loose and have difficulty setting limits for themselves. So strict curfews not only help them maintain discipline but also learn to take responsibity for their health.

 All in all, strict curfews play an essential role in the development of teenagers and keep teens safe and protect their well-being.

First, it is obvious that curfews help keep teenagers safe in many ways. When teenagers go out late at night, they may face potential dangers coming from accidents or even social evils. That parents ask their teenage children to go home before a specific time can hinder those risks from happening.

Second, curfews can be beneficial for teens' personal growth. Teenagers develop their time management skills. They can learn to set a timetable for their daily activities. They learn to know why they should be home before a certain time. This facilitates a sense of responsibility.

Moreover, curfews are important for the physical and mental health of teenagers. When they come home on time, they have enough time to sleep and rest. This helps improve their mood and focus at school. As a result, their academic performances may be better.

In conclusion, strict curfews are important for teenagers. They keep them safe, help them manage time, and ensure teenagers well being. Parents should set clear curfews to help their children grow up well.

Nowadays, digital devices have become an essential part of personal development. However, excessive screen time can have negative impacts on health, particularly for teenagers. (Lạc đề)

First of all, using social media for a long time can cause physical and mental health issues.

-

Spending excessive screen time is one of the common reasons for problems such as obesity and poor eyesight which influence present and future children’s lives. For example, they may not see lectures which are written on the board and in the future, their employment opportunities will be lower as some companies have specific regulations about the body.

Secondly, teenagers may encounter many social problems when spending too much time on social media platforms. Some popular negative impacts are reducing communication ability, increasing the risk of depression, and tending to violent behaviors. This is because when teenagers waste a lot of time on screen, they will be less likely to practice and improve conversation skills. They isolate themselves from society, become more insecure and communicate less with others.

In conclusion, also social media is a valuable tool for communication and connection, spending too much time on it is not good. Therefore, I strongly believe that parents should limit their time on social media to help them balance between education and other activities.

There is an ongoing debate about whether parents should refrain their teenage children from accessing social networking sites. I firmly believe that ...... for a number of reasons.

First of all, teenagers who spend too much time ^{surfing the Internet} can lead to are more vulnerable to having psychological disorders such as depression or even autism. According to scientists, the rate of children who like to spend time on social networking sites is at higher risk of developing psychosocial disorders than the rate of children who spend less time on social networking sites. If family supervision is increasingly lacking, this problem will become more and more serious.

Việc bố mẹ ngăn cản là cần thiết để bảo vệ con cái họ khỏi những vấn đề về sức khỏe thể chất và tinh thần. Nghiên cứu chỉ ra rằng, trẻ em tiếp xúc nhiều vs mxh có nguy cơ mắc các chứng .... gấp .... lần so với trẻ em ko dùng.

In addition, spending too much time on social networking sites can hinder the development of children's social skills. Communication skills can be improved better through direct interactions. As a result, children will increasingly isolate themselves from the world around them and become procrastinators who like to waste time.

Ý 2: phát triển bản thân

Việc dùng mạng xh nhiều sẽ cản trở sự ptr của trẻ. social skills. các kỹ năng xã hội như là kỹ năng giao tiếp, giải quyết vấn đề sẽ đc trau dồi tốt hơn thông qua face-to-face interactions hơn là trên virtual world.

Furthermore, bố mẹ kiểm soát để bảo vệ con khỏi những nguy hiểm tiềm tàng trên mxh. Những cái risks đó bao gồm scams, cyberbullying and online harassment.

In short, social media is a double-edged sword and is not a safe place for teens to be. Parents should limit their time on social media platforms.

Firstly, curfews can ensure their children's safety. Nowadays, there are many dangers for children, such as accidents, social vices, or harmful individuals late at night. Therefore, parents having a curfew will help children prevent encountering those dangerous situations.

Secondly, curfews can also stabilize their children's schedule, improving their mental health and helping them focus more. If children feel relaxed and comfortable, they can do everything without depression. additionally, they can focus on their study and broaden their knowledge because they will have enough time. overall, parents should impose strict curfews on their teenagers children.

strict curfews giúp trẻ phát triển bản thân.

trẻ cần học cách quản lý thời gian của chúng thật tốt để có thể về nhà theo giờ đã định. Việc tự nguyện tuân theo sẽ khiến trẻ cảm thấy thoải mái hơn thay vì nổi loạn do những cảm xúc tiêu cực gây ra. Thêm vào đó, về nhà đúng giờ sẽ đảm bảo sức khỏe cho trẻ. đi ngủ đúng giờ, tránh xa các rủi ro xuất hiện ở ngoài đường vào đêm muộn.

Firstly, curfews can ensure their children safely Nowadays, there are many dangers for children, especially after 9pm,10pm such as accidents, social vices, or harmful individuals late at night. Therefore,parents have a curfew will help children preventing from encountering those dangerous situations.

Secondly,curfews also help children develop themselves. Children can learn how to manage their time. Knowing when they need to be home encourages them to balance time for studying, social activities, and personal interests. In addition, coming home on time will ensure children's health by going to bed on time, staying away from risks that appear on the street at night

Overall, strict curfews is important for children. It help protect and develop themselves. parents should impose strict curfew on their children

First, these platforms provide teenage children a means of connection. They can find and connect with many friends who share similar interests, fostering their communication skills. Moreover, chatting with friends online can also help them relieve stress after school. (long-lost friends) - (far-distant friends)

Second, children can improve their personal development. When teens engage in creative activities on these platforms, such as writing, drawing, and making videos. This develops teens' personal talents. For example, children can follow artists and content creators who can not only inspire them but also give them useful tips and advice on the topics they are interested in.

In sum, I strongly believe that parents shouldn’t limit their teenage children’s time on social media for these above benefits.

First, it is obvious that curfews help keep teenagers safe in many ways. When teenagers go out late at night, they may face potential dangers coming from accidents or even social evils. That parents ask their teenage children to go home before a specific time can hinder those risks from happening.

Second, curfews can be beneficial for teens' personal growth. Teenagers develop their time management skills through learning to set a timetable for their daily activities so that they can be home before a specific time. They understand the need to follow rules, which helps them become more disciplined and learn to control their actions.

Moreover, curfews are important for the physical and mental health of teenagers. When they come home on time, they have enough time to sleep and rest. This helps improve their mood and focus at school. As a result, their academic performances may be better.

In conclusion, having a strict curfew for teenagers is important for their safety and growth and can lead to better habits and help teens do well in school and life.

First of all, teenagers may have difficulty communicating. Although social media is a place where people around the world can talk and share everything with each other, these interactions are virtual. Therefore, if children spend excessive time on network media and skip face-to-face social interaction, their real communication skills may be reduced and they may feel isolated.

 In addition, decreasing screentime on social media can help teenagers balance their lives. For example, they may have more time to focus on their studies and other activities that foster meaningful relationships outside of social networks.

In conclusion, social networking platforms help children connect and communicate with everyone; however, parents should limit their screentime on online networks to protect their children.

Firstly, strict curfews help to establish boundaries to protect teenagers from dangerous situations at night. Because after 10p.m, they may have distorted thoughts. Returning home early and sleeping before a specific time also bring both benefits for their mental health and physical health.

Đoạn 1: Áp cái curfews vào con thì giúp bảo vệ con khỏi những nguy hiểm. Tuổi teens còn quá non nớt để tự bảo vệ bản thân mình nguy hiểm tiềm tàng từ những tệ nạn xã hội như là lừa đảo, bắt cóc hoặc rượu bia, thuốc cái mà phổ biến hơn vào ban đêm. // Teens khi ra ngoài quá muộn vào ban đêm sẽ dễ trở thành con mồi (are prone to fall prey to những tệ nạn xã hội bởi vì chũng còn quá non nớt. Việc về sớm ko những bảo vệ sự an toàn cho trẻ mà còn mang lại sự yên tâm cho bố mẹ.

Secondly, imposing strict curfews on youngsters teaches them necessary life skills. Being at home before a specific time requires teens to manage their schedule and activities properly and scientifically, thereby improving their time management skills. Additionally, curfews instill a sense of responsibility, which is essential for teens in their independent lives.

In a nutshell, I strongly believe that parents should impose strict curfews to benefit both parents and children.

Firstly, that parents prevent their children from spending too much time on virtual interaction platforms can help protect teens from physical and mental health problems. Research shows that children who are exposed to social media are three times more likely to suffer from chronic diseases like diabetes and obesity than children who are not. What is more, teens' excessive time on these platforms can be vulnerable to psychological problems such as anxiety and depression. (Tự tách)

Additionally, spending too much time on social media sites can hinder teens' social development. Compared to adolescents who follow a disciplined lifestyle, those who live a disordered lifestyle may have difficulty managing their time on social media and are more likely to become chronic procrastinators.

In short, social media is a double-edged sword and is not a safe place for teens to be. Parents should limit their time on social media platforms.

There is an ongoing debate about whether ...... I firmly believe that ....

First of all, social media platforms provide a huge source of information for teenagers to support their studies. For example, teens can join in different study forums to acquire knowledge and broaden their horizon on the topic they are interested in. If parents strictly control their use of these platforms, they at the same time hinder their children from learning.

In addition, parents who limit their teenage children's time on social media platforms can create distance between teenagers and parents. Teenagers may feel that their parents don't respect their privacy and freedom. As a result, more conflicts may appear between them.

In a nutshell, social media platform can gain many benefits for teenage children, so parents should not limit their time on this stage.

Firstly, strict regulations give parents some peace of mind. This serenity comes from seeing their children safe from potential outside risks. Studies show that the rate of children under strict parental control is less likely to get involved in vices compared to those without severe parental supervision.

In addition, that setting strict curfews requires teens to learn how to organize their own time properly. This not only increases the efficiency of the work they have to do but also helps them learn how to balance their lives.

In short, it is important that parents impose strict curfews to ensure their children's safety and foster their personal development.

Firstly, that parents prevent their children from spending too much time on virtual interaction platforms can help protect teens from physical health problems. Research shows that children who are exposed to social media are three times more likely to suffer from chronic diseases like diabetes and obesity than children who are not.

In addition, not only does this restriction help protect teens' physiacal health, it also protects their mental health.What is more, teens' excessive time on these platforms can be vulnerable to psychological problems such as anxiety and depression.

Additionally, spending too much time on social media sites can hinder teens' social development. Compared to adolescents who follow a disciplined lifestyle, those who live a disordered lifestyle may have difficulty managing their time on social media and are more likely to become chronic procrastinators.

In short, social media is a double-edged sword and is not a safe place for teens to be. Parents should limit their time on social media platforms.

Even if online learning is adopted, the most likely scenario in the near future in education will be a hybrid market, where innovative classroom models are integrated into traditional teaching activities while physical classrooms remain part of education. One explanation for this argument lies in the vision that the holistic development of children must be ensured. Accordingly, schools should not only provide children with knowledge but also simulate miniature societies, which is much better than virtual assistants and big data facilitating homeschooling with personalized curriculum. Due to schools, children learn how to encounter setbacks, how to overcome adversity, and how to forge their resilience and stamina.

Despite some being hopeful about the end of traditional classrooms by 2050, I find this to be an imprudent conclusion. It is nearly impossible for developing countries to overcome technological and economic obstacles to make this a universal reality. Additionally, traditional education is crucial for children's comprhensive development, something that other educational models cannot fully achieve.

Overall, modern languages were the most favored course in 1985, but IT has now taken the lead. While the number of students taking part in art, modern languages, and music appreciation has decreased, there has been an increase in enrollment in IT and cookery courses.

In 1985, nearly a quarter of students chose to learn different languages including French, German and Spanish. Fitness and dance courses were also popular, making up 22% of total enrollments. This was closely followed by art classes, which accounted for 17% of the total enrollment, slightly higher than local history and cookery, which accounted for 15% and 14%, respectively. Music appreciation was the least favored, with only 8% of students choosing it.

This year, there has been a slight drop in enrollments for modern languages and art, which now account for 17% and 15% respectively. In contrast, the proportion of students in IT, a new addition to the curriculum, has grown to 27%, making it the most popular course. This shows an upward trend of students interested in technology courses. Similarly, cookery classes have been growing slightly to 19% this year. Meanwhile, the enrollment rate for fitness and dance classes remains static at 22%, and music appreciation is no longer offered at the center.