雅思寫(xiě)作高分范文

　　雅思作文是雅思考試中較難的一部分，考生們?cè)趶?fù)習(xí)雅思作文的時(shí)候可以多參考雅思范文。下面是學(xué)習(xí)啦小編為大家提供的雅思寫(xiě)作范文精選，都是十分優(yōu)秀的范文。大家可以背誦與參考。

　　Increasing Divorce Rates: Is China Facing a Marriage Crisis?關(guān)于離婚的雅思作文范文

　　The traditional Chinese concept that “a peaceful family will prosper” seems to be coming under fire of late, given the recent marriage statistics. 2009 saw over 1.2 million Chinese couples happily tie knot, though this number was overshadowed by the 1.96 million divorces in the same year. Since the 1970s, the divorce rate in China has been steadily increasing, with an estimated increase of 7.65% in the past five years.

　　An article entitled “High Celebrity Couple Divorce Rates” recently appeared in the Chinese media, which highlighted the fact that many Chinese celebrity couples divorced before their seventh wedding anniversary. The article stated: “Among the 30 celebrity couples around the world who divorced in 2012, 20 of them were Chinese.” Amid this broad discussion on the increasing divorce rate in China, a survey revealed that the divorce rate for couples aged between 22 and 35 in Beijing and Shanghai is over one third. What exactly has been the key factor affecting marriage in China? Could it be problems regarding children, money, or even love itself?

　　More recently a “Chinese Romantic Happiness” survey, conducted by Tsinghua University and society magazine Inside China, asked various couples what their thoughts on marriage were.

　　According to the survey, the top ten factors affecting the happiness of a marriage were: emotional attraction, communication, the willingness to understand each other, loyalty, children, income, sex life, relationship of mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, family relations, housing, and housework. Among the couples surveyed, 59% stated they were “relatively happy,” 17.7% said they were “very happy,” 14.2% said it was “hard to say,” whilst only 8.6% stated they were “not too happy,” or “very unhappy.” The statistics regarding happy couples were 4.8% higher than numbers from 2011. The survey also revealed that couples in their first three years of marriage were the happiest, while couples married for seven to ten years were found to have the lowest rates of happiness.

　　Despite its growing acceptance in Chinese society, affairs are obviously potential marriage killers. In light of the survey, Inside China magazine stated that cheating was ranked as the number one reason for divorce, rated 17.5% higher than the second cause, domestic violence.

　　In summary, according to this survey, it does still appear that marriage in China is still a reasonably successful institution. Only 22.5% of those surveyed stated that they had experienced trouble in their marriage, and only 0.5% of said they had been through a divorce.

　　雅思寫(xiě)作范文：快餐和傳統(tǒng)食品的區(qū)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(duì)比來(lái)說(shuō),

　　Compared with A=in contrast to A :和A對(duì)比來(lái)說(shuō),

　　On the contrary=conversely: 相反

　　雅思寫(xiě)作范文：公眾吸煙問(wèn)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.

　　雅思寫(xiě)作7分范文分享：影視暴力

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

　　Recently, the discussion about whether the government should control the amount of violence in films and on television has become a heated one. People take diverse attitudes towards this issue. Before presenting my view, I seek to analyze the issue from different angles.

　　From some people’s point of view, there are many good reasons for controlling the amount of violence in films and on television. First, violent films and television can do harm to young people. Because they contains numerous of erotic, corrupt and provoking episode, which can bring negative influence to na?ve young people. Moreover, since young people are in the formative years, they are not mature enough. They always like imitating their idols, no matter right or wrong, which lead to the increasing of the juvenile delinquents. Thirdly, violence begets violence. Violent films and television can make people aggressive and cold-blooded, which enhance the violent crime in society. In a word, controlling the amount of violence in films and TV effectively can decrease the violent crimes in society and preserve social security.

　　Many others, however, take a quite strong opposite attitude towards this issue. They believe violent media have their positive sides, which should not be controlled by government. To begin with, there are many valuable education functions in this kind of films and TV. Because they can reflect the reality, and we can’t imagine that there aren’t any con information but only pro things in our world. Secondly, if the government control the violent films and television, it must influence the development of the entertainment industry. Last but not least, they can prepare children for the adult world and teach them to cherish life.

　　As far as I am concern, I strongly believe that the amount of violence in films and TV should be controlled. At the same time, we cannot deny the advantages brought by them. And the best policy is to develop the merits of the violent films and television, while grading and filtering them, describing that which are not fit for the children to watch.

　　雅思寫(xiě)作范文：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.