朗阁

双边类大作文，社会类话题

Some people think that holding large-scale international games is good for the host country, while others disagree. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

题目来源：2021年1月9日亚太雅思大作文

题目大意

有人认为，举办大型国际赛事对东道主有利，其他人反对。讨论双边并给出观点。

思路解析

这道双边类题目，其实是在问同学是否同意题意的观点。如果选择支持观点，那么在论证“反对”的理由时需要找出不足，对其进行相应的反驳。

首先来看看举办大型国际赛事对东道主（or主办国）的有利之处：

一是给东道主带来盈利契机。大型的国际赛事能够吸引*甚至其他国家的观众，观众要看比赛就得买门票，场馆里的纪念品商店也很好逛，还能拉动周边的住宿餐饮业发展。此外，外国观众大老远跑到主办国观看比赛，通常会停留较长的时间，当地旅游业可以抓住机会，设计几条吸引眼球的线路，刺激地方经济增长。

二是*东道主的国际地位。通过举办大型国际比赛，能够全方位展示主办国的综合国力，包括雄厚的经济实力、高水平的服务、强大的交通运输以及良好的社会治安，让国际社会注意到且认同。比如北京2008年奥运会开幕式在当时引起了空前的关注。而且要举办这些赛事，各方各面都需要与国际接轨，比如统一的场馆要求，规则标准等等，这都有利于主办城市向国际化大都市迈进。

再来讨论可能带来的弊端：

一是可能会引起主办国民众的不满，损害政府公信力。举办大型国际赛事的成本很高，需要政府投入大量财政预算，但这部分资金本可用于对民生更加有利的方面，比如医疗、养老、社会公共设施建造等等。如果主办国政府一意孤行，将有限的资金投入举办这类赛事，很有可能引发人们的质疑和批评，造成政府公信力的下降。比如2016年，距离里约奥运会开幕的前五天，成千上万的巴西人走上街头抗议，指责政府为办奥运拖延薪资。

二是浪费当地资源，不利于环*。主办城市为赛事耗巨资修建的的体育场馆和配套设施，在赛事结束后往往会被闲置甚至废弃，部分闲置的场馆还需要政府每年投入大量费用进行*养维护，使得本就有限的资源浪费严重，这一些都不符合可持续发展的*，与环*事业的宗旨背道而驰。

提纲

*范文示例

Some people favour the idea of hosting mega international sporting events due to numerous benefits brought to the nations where these games are being organised, whereas others argue that there are more disadvantages. Personally, I tend to agree with the former group. 

First of all, these major multinational games tend to yield significant economic benefits for the host country through a surge in visitors, athletes and media. The influx of audience both at home and abroad makes it possible for the local administration to earn moderately high revenue by selling tickets of the event, which would further boost the accommodation and catering industry in the vicinity of the venue. While for those foreign spectators, spending several days going sightseeing and immersing themselves in exotic cultures are highly desirable, so that local tourism would make further headway. In addition, the host country’s international profile can be notably raised. Hosting such competitions at the global level is destined to gain massive worldwide recognition since a country’s comprehensive national strength can be demonstrated in all aspects, involving its vigorous economic performance, advanced level of tertiary industry, developed transportation and overall social stability.

Some opponents may claim that organising these large-scale games would exert tremendous pressure on local resources. It is true to some certain extent since the stadiums and supporting facilities are often left unused and abandoned after the games, some of which even require considerable annual maintenance fees. However, such concern can be mitigated by proper planning and management. A convincing example is that many Olympic facilities in London have been converted into affordable housing, which can be reckoned as a feasible solution.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that hosting such major international events is profitable and doomed to let the host country assured of worldwide reputation as long as local governments and relevant social sectors jointly propose practical approaches so as to minimize some possible discouraging ramifications.