TASK 2 (AGREE OR DISAGREE): LIFE WITHOUT WORK
If people could choose between a life without working or a life spending too much time working, people would choose a life without work. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Sample Answer
There is an assumption that if a choice had to be made between a life completely devoid of professional affairs and one that is overwhelmed with career responsibilities, an arbitrary person would undoubtedly opt for the former despite legitimate arguments, including a sense of purpose and various depths of meaning, underscoring the latter. Personally, this hypothesis is not grounded in facts, and does not take into consideration contextual and situational factors. Plus, excessive working is also subjective and largely varies from person to person.
It is, first and foremost, safe to assume that the sentiment in question is not contextually and situationally evidenced. Logically, the word ‘people’ is used arbitrarily and rather carelessly without a clear indication of the exact individuals, groups of people, or organisations. There are broad generalisations already being made that do not take into account subtle variations and the inherent complexities within different groups of individuals.
Regarding social classes, the distinction in terms of choices is evidently clear. An average working-class employee, who was born in a middle-class family, would gravitate towards a life absent of professional duties, while an affluent person, endowed with inter-generational wealth transfer, is more likely to seek purpose in life through a fulfilling profession. It is this circumstantial factor that dictates people’s inclination towards their career ambition.
Relatedly, cultural factors and personal beliefs are also at play. Western cultures advocate a work-life-balance with an emphasis on personal well-being; however, some Asian societies, such as the Japanese, are famously diligent for their conscientious work ethics characterised by gruelling schedules at the expense of other facets of life, such as family, hobbies, and personal interests. Since there are no clear rights or wrongs, the statement brought up in the question is groundless circumstantially.
Lastly, the definition of overwork is subjective and its evaluation varies significantly from one person to the next. For a typical office worker without career aspirations, a 60-hour work week can already be strenuous, whereas an aspiring and motivated CEO would likely find a 100-hour work week a fulfilling experience. The latter would even structure his life around this devotion, thereby organising all responsibilities logically and strategically to meet gruesome demands. Such an example would negate an over-generalised assumption made in the question about people choosing a life without work.
In conclusion, the given hypothesis is largely groundless and unsupported, lacking contextual, situational, and circumstantial evidence to be called a legitimate one for debate. By the same token, the definition of ‘too much time working’ is individually dependent and too subjective to be critically evaluated.
Marking by Chat GPT Plus
TỪ VỰNG HAY
If people could choose between a life without working or a life spending too much time working, people would choose a life without work. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There is an assumption that if a choice had to be made between a life completely devoid of professional affairs and one that is overwhelmed with career responsibilities, an arbitrary person would undoubtedly opt for the former despite legitimate arguments, including a sense of purpose and various depths of meaning, underscoring the latter. Personally, this hypothesis is not grounded in facts, and does not take into consideration contextual and situational factors. Plus, excessive working is also subjective and largely varies from person to person.
It is, first and foremost, safe to assume that the sentiment in question is not contextually and situationally evidenced. Logically, the word ‘people’ is used arbitrarily and rather carelessly without a clear indication of the exact individuals, groups of people, or organisations. There are broad generalisations already being made that do not take into account subtle variations and the inherent complexities within different groups of individuals.
Regarding social classes, the distinction in terms of choices is evidently clear. An average working-class employee, who was born in a middle-class family, would gravitate towards a life absent of professional duties, while an affluent person, endowed with inter-generational wealth transfer, is more likely to seek purpose in life through a fulfilling profession. It is this circumstantial factor that dictates people’s inclination towards their career ambition.
Relatedly, cultural factors and personal beliefs are also at play. Western cultures advocate a work-life balance with an emphasis on personal well-being; however, some Asian societies, such as the Japanese, are famously diligent for their conscientious work ethics characterised by gruelling schedules at the expense of other facets of life, such as family, hobbies, and personal interests. Since there are no clear rights or wrongs, the statement brought up in the question is groundless circumstantially.
Lastly, the definition of overwork is subjective and its evaluation varies significantly from one person to the next. For a typical office worker without career aspirations, a 60-hour work week can already be strenuous, whereas an aspiring and motivated CEO would likely find a 100-hour work week a fulfilling experience. The latter would even structure his life around this devotion, thereby organising all responsibilities logically and strategically to meet gruesome demands. Such an example would negate an over-generalised assumption made in the question about people choosing a life without work.
In conclusion, the given hypothesis is largely groundless and unsupported, lacking contextual, situational, and circumstantial evidence to be called a legitimate one for debate. By the same token, the definition of ‘too much time working’ is individually dependent and too subjective to be critically evaluated.
Vocabulary
- overwhelmed with career responsibilities – ngập trong trách nhiệm công việc
- sense of purpose – cảm giác có mục tiêu sống
- depths of meaning – chiều sâu ý nghĩa
- contextual and situational factors – các yếu tố bối cảnh và tình huống
- excessive working – làm việc quá sức
- contextually and situationally evidenced – được chứng minh qua bối cảnh và tình huống
- broad generalisations – khái quát quá mức
- subtle variations – những khác biệt tinh tế
- inherent complexities – sự phức tạp vốn có
- inter-generational wealth transfer – sự chuyển giao tài sản qua nhiều thế hệ
- fulfilling profession – nghề nghiệp mang lại sự hài lòng
- circumstantial factor – yếu tố tùy hoàn cảnh
- career ambition – tham vọng nghề nghiệp
- work-life balance – cân bằng giữa công việc và cuộc sống
- conscientious work ethics – đạo đức nghề nghiệp tận tâm
✔ DÀN Ý
Mở bài
- Có quan điểm: Nếu phải chọn giữa không làm việc và làm quá nhiều, ai cũng sẽ chọn không làm.
- Tuy nhiên, quan điểm này thiếu cơ sở và không xét đến hoàn cảnh.
- Ý kiến: Không đồng ý với nhận định trên.
Thân bài 1: Quan điểm đề bài quá chung chung
- Từ “mọi người” không rõ ai, áp dụng bừa bãi.
- Không xét đến sự khác biệt giữa các nhóm người.
🔹 VD: Người lao động thường muốn nghỉ ngơi.
🔹 VD: Người giàu lại muốn làm việc để tìm mục đích sống.
Thân bài 2: Yếu tố văn hoá & niềm tin cá nhân
- Văn hoá Tây: đề cao cân bằng công việc – cuộc sống.
- Văn hoá Á (Nhật): coi trọng làm việc chăm chỉ, hi sinh cả đời sống cá nhân.
🔹 VD: Người Nhật chấp nhận làm việc tới kiệt sức → không thể nói ai cũng muốn nghỉ làm.
Thân bài 3: “Làm việc quá nhiều” là khái niệm chủ quan
- Mỗi người có giới hạn khác nhau.
🔹 VD: Nhân viên thấy 60h/tuần là quá sức.
🔹 VD: CEO thấy 100h/tuần vẫn thoả mãn. - Mỗi người tự sắp xếp công việc – cuộc sống theo cách riêng → không thể đánh đồng.
Kết bài
- Quan điểm đề bài thiếu bối cảnh, không thuyết phục.
- Khái niệm “làm việc quá nhiều” tuỳ từng người, không thể đánh giá chung.
