动物试验
　　Should experiments be conducted on animals for the benefit of human beings?
　　Every day, thousands of people are saved from painful diseases and death by powerful medical drugs and treatments. This incredible gift of medicine would not be possible without animal testing. Despite these overwhelming benefits, however, some people are calling for animal testing to be banned because of alleged cruelty. This essay will examine arguments for and against animal testing.
　　Those against the use of animal testing claim that it is inhumane to use animals in experiments. I disagree completely. It would be much more inhumane to test new drugs on children or adults. Even if it were possible, it would also take much longer to see potential effects, because of the length of time we live compared to laboratory animals such as rats or rabbits.
　　Opponents of animal testing also claim that the results are not applicable to humans. This may be partly true. Some drugs have had to be withdrawn, despite testing. However, we simply do not have alternative methods of testing. Computer models are not advanced enough, and testing on plants is much less applicable to humans than tests on animals such as monkeys. Until we have a better system, we must use animal testing.
　　A further point often raised against animal testing is that it is cruel. Some of the tests certainly seem painful, but the great majority of people on this planet eat meat or wear leather without any guilt. Where is their sympathy for animals? Furthermore, animals clearly do not feel the same way as humans, and scientists are careful to minimize stress in the animals, since this would damage their research.
　　I agree that we need to make sure that animals who are used for testing new products have the minimum of suffering. However, I am convinced that animal testing is necessary, and that it will continue to benefit humans in new and wonderful ways.(311 words)

环境问题国际化
　　Environment problems are too big for individual countries or people to solve. Rather, it should be dealt with at an international level. Do you agree or disagree?
　　Human society has developed into a stage where environmental problems have gone beyond national borders and become an issue that can be only solved by the cooperation of all the countries in the world.
　　First, the seriousness of the environmental problems has gone beyond the individual country's ability to solve. The environment has been polluted for hundreds of years by all the people in every country. So it is impossible to ask one country to solve the problem of the whole human society. Second, the environment of the whole globe is a unity and it cannot be treated separately by each country. For example, the air pollution of carbon dioxides in one country will cause the warmth of the whole globe and ultimately affect other countries. Third, due to lacking of capital and advanced technology, some countries are not capable of dealing with the environment problems. They need the international assistance.
　　But, when we emphasize on the solution at the international level, it is by no means the excuse for individual countries or people to pass the buck to others. Since it is the problem of the whole human society, each member has his own duty. Only when every individual takes up his responsibility can the problem be solved. Further more, there are rich countries and poor countries. It is impossible for each country to take up the same duty for the existence of different national powers. Rich countries should not refuse to make contributions at the excuse that poor countries take less responsibility. And on the other hand, poor countries should not give up the hope to solve the problem at the excuse of lacking the ability.
　　We have only one earth, only under the efforts of all the countries can we make better of our home. Each member should make his own contribution. (305 words)