雅思寫作大作文Task2寫作素材之政府類
來源：環球教育整理
小編：Eileen 2604政府類話題大作文是雅思考試中非常常見的寫作話題之一。2016年整年寫作考試中政府類話題占8%。今天環球小編就為各位艱苦奮斗在雅思寫作戰場的考生整理政府類話題寫作套路及政府類雅思寫作范文。
政府類話題會考到哪些題目？
1.個人與政府
母題：Some people say that it is the responsibility of individuals to save money for their own care after they retire. To what extent do you agree or disagree? (070825)
提示：關于政府與個人這類話題，肯定是些政府和個人都應當分擔責任。
子題：政府要不要為個人的醫療和健康買單？個人不要向國家繳稅，你同意嗎？公民除了納稅以外還有別的方法來盡社會責任嗎？捐助是應該直接捐助給當地社區，還是給國家和國際性慈善組織？人們是否只應當關心當地和本國的人，而不是整個世界的人？
2.政府應當投資嗎？
母題：Some people say arts such as music and painting cannot directly improve the quality of people's life, so the government shouldn't put money on art such as music and painting, instead, they should spend more money on construction of public services. Do you agree or disagree? (040626, 041127, 070920, 110611)
提示：政府投資類的話題幾乎全都是交叉類話題，分別與教育（誰應該為學費買單）、藝術、科技、健康等話題結合。這類題目的寫法大同小異，好處就是圍繞各自的交叉來寫，如促進教育、藝術、科技的發展，促進公民的健康，等等，而壞處都是一樣的：浪費政府的有限的財政lavish the tight budget of the government，或者說給政府造成了沉重的經濟負擔impose a heavy financial burden on the government.
子題：政府不應當投資修建劇院、體育館，而是醫療和教育，你同意嗎？藝術家應該是政府資助，還是其他來源資助？政府應當資助本土電影嗎？科學研究應該被政府而不是小公司來進行，你同意嗎？體育隊應該由政府還是非政府來源來贊助？個人健康是否應當由非營利性公司來運營？政府應當投資修建道路嗎？舉辦奧運會的利與弊？
3.城市化與城鄉差別
母題：In some countries, governments are encouraging industries and businesses to move out of large cities and into regional areas. Do you think the advantages of this development outweigh its disadvantages?(080809)
提示：城市化的發展帶來了一系列的問題，而最有效的方法就是把公司和工廠搬遷到局部地區（郊區），進行人口導入。這雖然給城市的居住環境有很大的改善，但也會造成一定的負面影響。
子題：城市化會帶來哪些問題，如何解決，是否要鼓勵人們住在郊區？城市化會給年輕人帶來什么問題，如何解決？是否只有政府才能解決住房短缺問題？ 城市規劃者把商店、學校、辦公樓、居民區集中在一起，有何利弊？市中心的商店生意慘淡，人們開車去郊區的商店，有何利弊？城鄉差別產生的原因是什么，如何縮小差距？
政府類話題該如何寫？
套路一：政府的投資問題
經典題目：
Space research is a waste of money. The government should spend money on improving conditions of people living on Earth.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some people think that the government should stop supporting arts financially because arts do not directly improve people's lives.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
類似考題：政府能否為人們的教育和醫療服務出錢?政府和個人，誰應該為高等教育學費買單?政府要不要保護瀕臨消失的語言?
套路二：個人與政府的關系
經典題目
Individuals can do nothing to improve the environment. Only governments and large companies can make a difference.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Some people think that we should keep all the money we earn and not pay tax to the state.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
套路一的核心解題思路：政府應該優先確保社會基礎設施和服務建設的投資。
原因有三。
首先，政府應該優先投資公共服務(public services)，比如基礎教育(basic education)和醫療(medical care)，因為納稅人的錢(money paid by citizens)是政府財政收入(tax revenue)的主要來源，作為納稅人(taxpayers)我們理應收到政府的"回饋"(reward)。
其次，在一些發展中國家(developing countries)，很多人仍舊生活在貧困之中(live in poverty)，缺乏食物和住所(lack food and shelter)，政府有責任幫助他們擺脫貧困(get rid of poverty)，否則，他們容易成為社會動蕩的因素(cause social unrest)。
最后，社會公共設施和服務水平是一個國家發展的基本條件(fundamental and essential to the development of a country)，沒有完善的公共設施和服務，公民則會感到自身的基本權益無法得到保障，也就不會為國家效力。
套路二的核心解題思路：政府在應對社會問題時具備三大獨特優勢，但這與個人的努力也是分不開的。
1.有錢。題目：個人和政府，誰來解決環境問題?應當承認，有一些環境問題是個人難以解決的，比如能源短缺和氣候變化。政府最大的優勢是可以高效分配公共資金(efficiently allocate public funds)來應對這些問題。
2.有權。政府有權的體現是征稅和制定法律。通過征稅，政府可以防止貧富差距擴大(control the gap between the rich and poor);針對環境問題，向一些一次性產品(disposable products)征收更多消費稅(impose more consumption taxes)能抑制人們的消費;制定法律(introduce environment laws)則可以懲罰破壞環境的個人。
3.有號召力。有號召力意味著政府要加強兒童對環境問題的教育(education children environmental issues)，培養兒童崇尚綠色生活的態度(develop a positive attitude towards leading green life)。
政府類雅思寫作范文：
1.Some people think governments should introduce laws assessing what nutrition and food choices to improve public health. Others think it is wrong. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.有些人認為政府應該頒布法律規定選擇何種營養或者食物有利于健康，而另一些人不這么認為。請討論雙方的觀點并給出你自己的觀點。
Some people think governments should introduce laws assessing what nutrition and food choices to improve public health. Others think it is wrong. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Food is the paramount necessity of people. However, in recent years, we are appalled by the frequent outbreak of such incidents as milk powder adulterated with melamine, lean meat powder and a spate of food contamination cases. In response, a growing number of people call for the government to take decisive actions to tackle food safety hazards by introducing laws assessing food nutrition.
People in favor of such practice believe that customers have the right to find out everything about the food to make sure that what they eat is safe. If this information is transparent, then customers can feel free to choose the food they like without worring that this food can be harmful to their health. Besides, by keeping the information about the nutrition of food transparent, it can also discourage food producers from behaving irresponsibly for the food they make since it puts them under the scrutiny of customers. By this means, food producers will be more careful about the materials they add into the food.
Nevertheless, some people hold opposite views, believing that releasing such laws fails to solve the food safety issues at its core. They maintain that this law can only result in food producers fabricating their nutrition labels instead of truly reflecting ingredients in their food. What's worse, this cosmetic work can lead to the dereliction of duty by government officials since they may loosen their monitoring on the food with such nutrition labels.
In my opinion, it is necessary to issue laws assessing food nutrition since they can hold food producers accountable for what they make by putting them under the scrutiny of customers. However, releasing the law does not mean that law enforcement officials can sit back and relax. Without those people's efforts, laws can only be a piece of paper, having no actual effect. Therefore, it takes both the law and people's action in implementing the law to deliver tangible results in our efforts to ensure food safety.
2.Some say that the government should stop supporting the professional sports activities and the cultural performances, and instead begin supporting schools to encourage children to take up sports and arts. What is your opinion?一些人說,政府應該停止支持專業級別的體育活動和文化表演,而是開始支持學校并鼓勵在學校的孩子參與體育和藝術競技。你的意見是什么?
Recently, some people call for the government to stop supporting professional sports activities and cultural performances and instead begin supporting sports and arts at school. Nevertheless, as far as I am concerned, it is neither sensible nor practical to do so.
Admittedly, professional sports activities and cultural performances bear some cost. However, they are worth the money considering the benefits they bring. In terms of the tangible benefits, better sports activities and cultural performances ca become a source of income, since they can propel the development of the tourist industry. With regard to the intangible ones, they can grace the national image and improve the national solidarity, which is of great value to a country. Therefore, it will be insensible to stop funding the professional sports activities and cultural performances.
In terms of the idea of supporting amateur sports and arts at school, I strongly doubt about its effectiveness in encouraging the development of sports and arts. Students live in the real world, facing the actual need to find a job and make a living. If sports and arts fail to guarantee them a professional job, then who would be bothered to take up sports and arts in the first place? Even though some sports and arts enthusiasts may plan to stick to their hobbies, they will finally yield to the urgent need to make money by taking up a job in other specialized fields. And eventually, their interests in sports and arts die out in their busy lives.
In conclusion, it is by no means a waste of money to support professional sports activities and cultural performances considering the tangible and intangible benefits they can bring to us. Moreover, only encouraging arts and sports at school fail to achieve the goal of promoting the development of arts and sports industry as a whole.
3.Many people use their own cars rather than public transport, so it is up to the government to encourage people to use buses and trains instead. Do you agree or disagree to this statement?很多人使用自己的私家車超過使用公交，因此政府應該鼓勵人們使用公交和火車。你在何種程度上同意或者不同意這個觀點?
The municipality ought to make it not only easier for people to use public transport but also make it more difficult for them to use their own cars. The answer is an up-to-date mass-transit system, which is expected to 'kill two birds with one stone,' so to speak. If everything goes well, the two big problems facing cities today-air pollution and traffic congestion--would be reduced to large extent.
There are several benefits to encouraging drivers to adopt other transport options. That is why, in cities with frequent traffic congestion, individuals often choose subway, light rail or bus service. These options can lower the traffic frequency on the roads, and relieve people of the stress associated with driving in heavy traffic. But, first thing first, it is up to the government to improve such infrastructure facilities as contributing to a rapid transport framework. Without an efficient system, it is hardly possible for drivers to consider leaving their cars in the garages. The logic is obvious: people need to move around rapidly, so if public transport proves to be time-saving, they would refrain from using their cars.
A modern mass-transit network has less of an environmental impact, apart from the advantage of reducing traffic congestion. The excessive use of private cars is often a health problem due to air pollution. Usually, that part of the city which has the worst congested traffic has the most notorious air pollution. This being the case, a huge sum of money should be spent on mass transit projects on a long-term basis. Before that, the government should take measures to control traffic flow by limiting non-essential driving in cities, if only for better air quality. As to how air pollution may cause climate to change because of the greenhouse effects is another story.
All in all, it is imperative for the government to solve the dual-problem of traffic congestion and air pollution through the single strategy of creating a mass transit system that can meet people's aspirations. Therefore, the question is not why but how. The government has the option; so do car owners.
