- 2018年03月19日11:54 来源：小站整理作者：小站雅思编辑
- 参与（6） 阅读（2790）
为大家带来2014年雅思写作真题参考范文合辑。此范文根据2014年历次雅思考试时间整理，按照社会类，教育类，科技类，文化类，教育类，政府类，犯罪类等进行分类。从历年的雅思写作真题来看，社会类，教育类写作题目占主要部分。写作题目有四种提问方式，分别是：1. Do you agree or disagree? / To what extent doyou agree or disagree? / What is your opinion?2. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.3. Do the advantages/ benefits outweigh disadvantages/ drawbacks?4. Problem-Reasons/Effects-Solutions.
这是一道典型的agree or disagree题目。题目本身存在因果逻辑。因此可以根据该因果关系解题。选取思路是disagree。
Nowadays, modern people are not only satisfied with a great variety of delicious food but obsessed with overeating as well. There exists a common voice that the advertising of some certain food contributing to this annoying phenomenon should be banned, but I doubt it.
第二段：Concession and Refutation: 的确，禁止某些食物的广告会减少人们了解到这些产品…………然而这真的会减少人们对该类型食物的食用吗?
Confessedly, the ban can shield people from the heavy exposure to the advertising of certain food products. Since advertising, people’s major access to the information of new food products, always takes advantage of multimedia method to exaggerate and beautify products. Stimulated and encouraged by such kind of advertising, people usually feel it difficult to resist the temptation of nice food. If not influenced by the advertising, people will probably enjoy a well balanced diet and overeating will be avoided. But wait a second, does food advertising really have so great power of persuasion? If without such advertising, will people really be not troubled by overeating? The answer may be negative.
One reason is that the advertising of certain food may not lead to overeating. 生活中充满了广告，并且都拍得很有意思。这样人们往往把广告当成娱乐方式，不太会因此狂吃。况且，即使没有广告，人们也不见得就不会狂吃。
In addition, the ban of smoking is not the grounds of the ban of certain food advertising. 烟草和食物不同，吸烟影响他人，狂吃对他人无害。且禁烟广告也未见得解决了吸烟问题。那么在禁止某些食物的广告意义何在呢?
As the prohibition of certain food advertising cannot address the issue of overeating, it is not necessary to ban it.
The rise in the crime rate in recent years has stimulated public to rethink the cause of criminality. Some people take the position that social environment and wealth may be the two influential factors while many other people maintain that someone is bound to be a criminal. personally, I side with the former position but go against the other one, meanwhile, whether to commit a crime is highly depend on personal choices,
Circumstance is a parameter of importance which will considerably affect crime rate. Very few people will commit a crime in an environment- friendly country with a sound welfare system. For example, every individual in Switzerland owns a gun but the crime rate is extremely low, this is mainly because Switzerland is a harmonious and wealthy country. Besides, it is a fact that crime rate will change along with social circumstance. For instance, during the American Great Depression, there is an obvious increase in theft and robbery. When business is depressed, many unemployed people will choose to offend for survival.
The other view, some people are born criminals, seemingly does not hold water. There is no doubt that some criminals have genetic character flaws. However, it not only means people with criminal genes tend to but will not always do a crime. Their potential anti-social behavior is avoidable if they are given enough care and attention.
My opinion about the issue is that criminality is a personal behavior. Some well-educated people are going to be hackers to conduct Internet economic crime in some developed countries like America. They are not poor or naturally offensive. In fact, they just want to show their ability and high intelligence. By comparison, people who live in a country with social unrest will not necessarily commit a crime. Instead, most people used to work hard and enjoy their life.
To summarize, nobody is a criminal by nature. Social environment is a significant but not determining factor to crime. Criminals rely on personal behavior to a high degree.