政府类话题大作文是雅思考试中非常常见的写作话题之一。2016年整年写作考试中政府类话题占8%。今天环球小编就为各位艰苦奋斗在雅思写作战场的考生整理政府类话题写作套路及政府类雅思写作范文。

　　政府类话题会考到哪些题目？

　　1.个人与政府

　　母题：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：关于政府与个人这类话题，肯定是些政府和个人都应当分担责任。

　　子题：政府要不要为个人的医疗和健康买单？个人不要向国家缴税，你同意吗？公民除了纳税以外还有别的方法来尽社会责任吗？捐助是应该直接捐助给当地社区，还是给国家和国际性慈善组织？人们是否只应当关心当地和本国的人，而不是整个世界的人？

　　2.政府应当投资吗？

　　母题：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：政府投资类的话题几乎全都是交叉类话题，分别与教育（谁应该为学费买单）、艺术、科技、健康等话题结合。这类题目的写法大同小异，好处就是围绕各自的交叉来写，如促进教育、艺术、科技的发展，促进公民的健康，等等，而坏处都是一样的：浪费政府的有限的财政lavish the tight budget of the government，或者说给政府造成了沉重的经济负担impose a heavy financial burden on the government.

　　子题：政府不应当投资修建剧院、体育馆，而是医疗和教育，你同意吗？艺术家应该是政府资助，还是其他来源资助？政府应当资助本土电影吗？科学研究应该被政府而不是小公司来进行，你同意吗？体育队应该由政府还是非政府来源来赞助？个人健康是否应当由非营利性公司来运营？政府应当投资修建道路吗？举办奥运会的利与弊？

　　3.城市化与城乡差别

　　母题：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：城市化的发展带来了一系列的问题，而最有效的方法就是把公司和工厂搬迁到局部地区（郊区），进行人口导入。这虽然给城市的居住环境有很大的改善，但也会造成一定的负面影响。

　　子题：城市化会带来哪些问题，如何解决，是否要鼓励人们住在郊区？城市化会给年轻人带来什么问题，如何解决？是否只有政府才能解决住房短缺问题？ 城市规划者把商店、学校、办公楼、居民区集中在一起，有何利弊？市中心的商店生意惨淡，人们开车去郊区的商店，有何利弊？城乡差别产生的原因是什么，如何缩小差距？

　　政府类话题该如何写？

　　套路一：政府的投资问题

　　经典题目：

　　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?

　　类似考题：政府能否为人们的教育和医疗服务出钱?政府和个人，谁应该为高等教育学费买单?政府要不要保护濒临消失的语言?

　　套路二：个人与政府的关系

　　经典题目

　　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?

　　套路一的核心解题思路：政府应该优先确保社会基础设施和服务建设的投资。

　　原因有三。

　　首先，政府应该优先投资公共服务(public services)，比如基础教育(basic education)和医疗(medical care)，因为纳税人的钱(money paid by citizens)是政府财政收入(tax revenue)的主要来源，作为纳税人(taxpayers)我们理应收到政府的"回馈"(reward)。

　　其次，在一些发展中国家(developing countries)，很多人仍旧生活在贫困之中(live in poverty)，缺乏食物和住所(lack food and shelter)，政府有责任帮助他们摆脱贫困(get rid of poverty)，否则，他们容易成为社会动荡的因素(cause social unrest)。

　　最后，社会公共设施和服务水平是一个国家发展的基本条件(fundamental and essential to the development of a country)，没有完善的公共设施和服务，公民则会感到自身的基本权益无法得到保障，也就不会为国家效力。

　　套路二的核心解题思路：政府在应对社会问题时具备三大独特优势，但这与个人的努力也是分不开的。

　　1.有钱。题目：个人和政府，谁来解决环境问题?应当承认，有一些环境问题是个人难以解决的，比如能源短缺和气候变化。政府最大的优势是可以高效分配公共资金(efficiently allocate public funds)来应对这些问题。

　　2.有权。政府有权的体现是征税和制定法律。通过征税，政府可以防止贫富差距扩大(control the gap between the rich and poor);针对环境问题，向一些一次性产品(disposable products)征收更多消费税(impose more consumption taxes)能抑制人们的消费;制定法律(introduce environment laws)则可以惩罚破坏环境的个人。

　　3.有号召力。有号召力意味着政府要加强儿童对环境问题的教育(education children environmental issues)，培养儿童崇尚绿色生活的态度(develop a positive attitude towards leading green life)。

　　政府类雅思写作范文：

　　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.有些人认为政府应该颁布法律规定选择何种营养或者食物有利于健康，而另一些人不这么认为。请讨论双方的观点并给出你自己的观点。

　　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?一些人说,政府应该停止支持专业级别的体育活动和文化表演,而是开始支持学校并鼓励在学校的孩子参与体育和艺术竞技。你的意见是什么?

　　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车超过使用公交，因此政府应该鼓励人们使用公交和火车。你在何种程度上同意或者不同意这个观点?

　　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.