TKA Advanced English Practice Test 2026 (SMA) — Set 2

Should City Centres Be Car-Free?

Across the world, a growing number of cities are closing their central streets to private cars. Supporters see this as the future of urban life, while critics fear it will hurt businesses and the people who depend on cars. The debate is now reaching Indonesian cities, where traffic jams are part of daily life.

Supporters argue that car-free centres make cities healthier and safer. When Oslo removed most cars and parking spaces from its centre in the late 2010s, the city reported fewer traffic injuries and more people walking and cycling. Cleaner air is another benefit: vehicle exhaust is a major source of the fine dust that damages the lungs. Supporters also point out that pedestrians tend to stop, look and shop more often than drivers, who simply pass through.

Opponents, however, warn that bans can create new problems. Elderly people and people with disabilities may find it harder to reach shops and clinics if they cannot be dropped off at the door. Small businesses that rely on deliveries worry about higher costs and lost customers. Critics also note that traffic does not simply disappear; it may move into the surrounding neighbourhoods, which then suffer more noise and pollution.

Whether a ban works seems to depend largely on what replaces the cars. Cities that succeeded usually introduced reliable public transport, fixed delivery hours for shops and exceptions for people with limited mobility before closing the streets. Where these steps were missing, the results were often disappointing, and in some places the bans were later reversed.

A car-free centre, then, is neither a magic solution nor a threat in itself. It is a tool, and like any tool, its value depends on how carefully it is used. For cities in Indonesia, the lesson is to prepare the alternatives first and close the streets second.

Cities Need Trees, Not Just Air Conditioners

As Indonesian cities grow hotter, many households respond by buying air conditioners. Yet the most effective cooling device for a city may be much older and much cheaper: the tree. City governments should make planting and caring for street trees a priority.

A group of university students measured the air temperature at midday on three streets in the same neighbourhood during the dry season. The street without trees reached 38 °C, while the street in full shade was six degrees cooler. Shade stops sunlight from heating asphalt and walls, and leaves release water vapour that cools the air around them. The measurements were repeated on five different days, and the pattern was the same each time. The students also noticed that people waiting for buses gathered under the few trees on the hottest street, even when the bus stop itself was some distance away.

Trees also reduce energy use. Air conditioners do cool rooms, but they release their heat outside, making streets even hotter, and they consume large amounts of electricity, much of which is still generated from coal. In contrast, a mature tree cools the street for decades, needs no electricity at all and even provides homes for birds and insects.

Moreover, trees absorb rainwater, reducing the risk of flooding, and they make walking more pleasant, which encourages people to leave their motorbikes at home. Admittedly, trees need space and care, and roots can damage pavements if the wrong species is chosen. These are real costs, but they can be managed by choosing suitable species and planning planting areas from the start.

For these reasons, every city budget should include a long-term programme of street-tree planting and maintenance. An air conditioner may cool one room; a row of trees can cool a whole neighbourhood.

Homework: How Much Is Too Much?

For generations, homework has been an ordinary part of school life. Recently, however, some schools have reduced it sharply or replaced it with reading at home, and parents are divided about the change. Some welcome the extra family time, while others worry that their children will fall behind. Is homework a valuable habit or an outdated burden?

Those who support homework argue that practice outside the classroom helps students remember what they have learned. Reviews of many studies have generally found a positive link between homework and achievement for secondary school students, especially when tasks are short and closely connected to lessons. Supporters add that homework teaches time management and independence, skills that students will need at university and at work. Homework can also show parents what their children are learning in class.

Critics respond that the benefits are much weaker for younger children. For primary pupils, studies show little connection between homework and test scores. Critics also point out that long homework hours can reduce sleep, exercise and family time, and that students without a quiet room or internet access at home are put at a disadvantage compared with their classmates.

Many educators now suggest that the real question is not whether to give homework, but how much and what kind. One widely quoted guideline is about ten minutes per night for each grade level — roughly an hour for a Grade 6 student and more for older students. Educators also recommend tasks that students can complete without help from their parents, so that homework practises skills rather than measuring how much support a family can give.

Homework, it seems, works best in small, purposeful doses. Schools that treat it as a tool rather than a tradition are more likely to get its benefits without its costs.

Repair Before You Replace

Many smartphone users replace their phones every two or three years, often because of a cracked screen or a weak battery rather than because the phone no longer works. I believe we should repair our devices far more often before we replace them.

First, electronic waste is one of the fastest-growing kinds of rubbish in the world. A United Nations report estimated that more than 60 million tonnes of e-waste were produced worldwide in 2022, and that less than a quarter of it was properly collected and recycled. Discarded phones contain toxic substances such as lead and mercury, which can leak into soil and water when devices end up in ordinary landfills.

Second, making a new phone uses far more resources than repairing an old one. Most of the carbon emissions linked to a smartphone are produced while it is being manufactured, not while it is being used. Replacing a battery or a screen extends a phone’s life while avoiding most of these emissions.

Third, repair creates local jobs. Small repair shops can be found in almost every Indonesian market, and they provide income for thousands of skilled technicians. Every phone repaired locally keeps money in the community.

Unfortunately, repair is not always easy. Some manufacturers glue batteries in place, sell spare parts only to authorised service centres, or charge almost as much for a repair as for a new device. This is why several governments have begun to require companies to make spare parts and repair manuals available for a number of years after a product is sold.

Consumers, too, can act: by choosing devices that are easier to repair, by protecting them with a case and a screen protector, and by asking “Can this be fixed?” before buying something new. A longer life for our phones means a lighter load for our planet.

Should Social Media Have a Minimum Age?

Several countries are considering laws that would stop children under a certain age, often 16, from opening social media accounts. Australia passed such a law in 2024, and other governments are watching closely to see whether it works. The debate raises difficult questions about safety, freedom and who should be responsible for children online.

Supporters say the rules protect young people at a sensitive stage of development. They point to studies linking heavy social media use with poor sleep and anxiety among teenagers, as well as the risks of cyberbullying and contact with strangers. A legal age limit, they argue, also helps parents who find it hard to say no when “everyone else” already has an account.

Opponents question whether such laws can work in practice. Age checks usually require users to upload identity documents or photos of their faces, which raises concerns about privacy and data security. Young people may also simply lie about their age or move to less regulated apps, where they are harder to protect. In addition, some teenagers rely on online communities for support, information or learning, especially those who live in remote areas.

Researchers add a note of caution to the debate. Most studies show an association between heavy use and poorer well-being, but this does not prove that social media is the cause. Teenagers who already feel anxious or lonely may simply spend more time online. Untangling cause and effect requires long-term studies that follow the same young people over many years, and such studies are still rare.

Perhaps the most useful question is not “How old?” but “What kind of social media, and how is it designed?” Rules that make platforms safer for everyone — for example, by limiting endless scrolling, strengthening privacy settings and making it easier to report abuse — may protect young users better than a single number ever could.