Earlier technological progress had been great with many far-reaching breakthroughs, especially in the early period of the last century. However, the benefits and changes brought by the earlier technological developments to the lives of ordinary people cannot compare with those brought by recent ones. Therefore, I disagree with the given statement. In the following paragraphs, I intend to support my opinion with my arguments.
Undoubtedly, recent technological developments have benefited and changed our life so much that we enjoy almost all the comforts and conveniences that life can ever offer. Today, we can breakfast in Japan, lunch in Singapore and dine at New Delhi. This is all because of the faster means of travel. The Internet has revolutionised communication. Today we send and receive e-mails at the click of a mouse. We chat and do video conferencing with our kith and kin in any part of the world. These are just two examples of how dramatically recent technological developments have benefited and changed our life.
Furthermore, in the field of medicine, we have gadgets to diagnose cancers and many other diseases at such early stages that almost complete cures are possible. Also, if we look at the means we use to go to work, the electrical appliances we use at home, the devices we use in offices, the facilities and equipments we use in factories, we can say with certainty that recent technology has transformed our lives beyond imagination.
Admittedly, earlier technological developments did benefit and change the lives of ordinary people from the time when they were achieved, especially after the Industrial Revolution. However, it is self-evident as to what benefited and changed people’s life more, telegraph or mobile phone, Phonograph or Mp4, Steam train or the monorail?
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that recent developments of technology have certainly benefited and changed our lives more than the earlier ones did.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
It is better for students at university to live far away from home than to live at home with their parents. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
It is a highly debated issue whether it is better for university students to live far away from home than to live at home with their parents. There are pros and cons of both approaches. It is necessary to look at both sides of the argument before forming an opinion.
There are definite benefits of staying at home. To begin with it is much more economical to stay at home than to stay near the university. If you choose to stay at the university then you either stay at the university dormitory or rent your own apartment. Both university options are more expensive as compared to home. Then you have to do your own cooking and cleaning which is not the case if you stay at home where your mother looks after all these things. You do spend some time commuting to and from the university but then you save your time on cooking and cleaning. The disadvantage of staying at home is that you may be disturbed by siblings and you have to help in household chores.
There are many advantages of staying near the university. University education is a time for you to mix with people of different backgrounds and cultures. This cultural exchange usually occurs after class hours. If you have to return home then you miss out on this golden opportunity. Secondly, there are good study facilities such as library, computer lab etc. if you are on or near the campus. You also get to experience some independence. The downside is that it is expensive and to cut the cost you may have to share your apartment with someone you don’t like.
In my opinion, it is definitely worthwhile to live at the university than with your parents even if you have to shell out some extra money for that because it is a golden opportunity to interact with people of different parts of the world and you get to enjoy the benefits of facilities like the library and sports stadiums and gyms.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that there are benefits and drawbacks of both approaches and the decision is purely subjective. However, in my opinion staying near the university is better.
There are definite benefits of staying at home. To begin with it is much more economical to stay at home than to stay near the university. If you choose to stay at the university then you either stay at the university dormitory or rent your own apartment. Both university options are more expensive as compared to home. Then you have to do your own cooking and cleaning which is not the case if you stay at home where your mother looks after all these things. You do spend some time commuting to and from the university but then you save your time on cooking and cleaning. The disadvantage of staying at home is that you may be disturbed by siblings and you have to help in household chores.
There are many advantages of staying near the university. University education is a time for you to mix with people of different backgrounds and cultures. This cultural exchange usually occurs after class hours. If you have to return home then you miss out on this golden opportunity. Secondly, there are good study facilities such as library, computer lab etc. if you are on or near the campus. You also get to experience some independence. The downside is that it is expensive and to cut the cost you may have to share your apartment with someone you don’t like.
In my opinion, it is definitely worthwhile to live at the university than with your parents even if you have to shell out some extra money for that because it is a golden opportunity to interact with people of different parts of the world and you get to enjoy the benefits of facilities like the library and sports stadiums and gyms.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that there are benefits and drawbacks of both approaches and the decision is purely subjective. However, in my opinion staying near the university is better.
In many countries today there is insufficient respect to old people. What are the reasons? What problems might it bring to the society?
It is irrefutable that because of advancements in science and technology, we have a greying society today. These demographic changes have brought up the topic that there is less respect for the elderly who are now in great numbers. In this essay I intend to delve into the causes and effects of this trend.
There are many reasons for lack of respect to the aged. In the workforce, creative and energetic young people who are able to work under a lot of pressure are preferred. In the techno-savvy world of today, the elderly feel out of place. They are not earning and so the youth hold the reins of the economy. Secondly, the old have problems adapting to ever-changing lifestyles and lag behind the times and so receive insufficient respect. The elderly are like a frog in the well and want their young ones to follow their professions. The youth, however, want to walk on the un-trodden path and find new avenues for themselves. Furthermore, the elderly suffer health problems such as hypertension, diabetes and arthritis, which make them physically weak and so they lack respect.
Another big reason for the elderly receiving less respect is the fact that they find it very difficult to let go. The young belong to the global culture and their elderly constantly nag and criticize them for their ways. This is not taken in the good light by the youngsters and they start ignoring them. The young also belong to a 24/7 society where competition is very stiff and as a result find it irritating and frustrating to find time to care and respect their elderly.
Less respect to the elderly has already caused many problems in these countries. The most noticeable is that people are indifferent to each other, and individuals tend to feel agitated, worrying about their own old life in the future. As a result, the whole society is not as harmonious and vigorous as the ones where senior citizens are treated with courtesy and respect. This situation has also led to a mushroom growth of old-age homes in the cities.
To sum up, it is our duty to respect the old people and the youth should not forget that they will too age one day. But, the elderly should also learn to keep-up with the times and be flexible with their youth.
There are many reasons for lack of respect to the aged. In the workforce, creative and energetic young people who are able to work under a lot of pressure are preferred. In the techno-savvy world of today, the elderly feel out of place. They are not earning and so the youth hold the reins of the economy. Secondly, the old have problems adapting to ever-changing lifestyles and lag behind the times and so receive insufficient respect. The elderly are like a frog in the well and want their young ones to follow their professions. The youth, however, want to walk on the un-trodden path and find new avenues for themselves. Furthermore, the elderly suffer health problems such as hypertension, diabetes and arthritis, which make them physically weak and so they lack respect.
Another big reason for the elderly receiving less respect is the fact that they find it very difficult to let go. The young belong to the global culture and their elderly constantly nag and criticize them for their ways. This is not taken in the good light by the youngsters and they start ignoring them. The young also belong to a 24/7 society where competition is very stiff and as a result find it irritating and frustrating to find time to care and respect their elderly.
Less respect to the elderly has already caused many problems in these countries. The most noticeable is that people are indifferent to each other, and individuals tend to feel agitated, worrying about their own old life in the future. As a result, the whole society is not as harmonious and vigorous as the ones where senior citizens are treated with courtesy and respect. This situation has also led to a mushroom growth of old-age homes in the cities.
To sum up, it is our duty to respect the old people and the youth should not forget that they will too age one day. But, the elderly should also learn to keep-up with the times and be flexible with their youth.
Some people think that students benefit from going to private secondary schools. Others, however, feel that private secondary schools can have a negative effect on society as a whole. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
In order to choose the right type of secondary school, you need to weigh all of the options open to you. It is a highly debated issue whether private secondary schools are good or bad for society. In the following paragraphs, I intend to delve into the pros and cons of private secondary schools.
On the positive side, most of the private schools offer smaller classroom size and so the child can receive more individual attention from teachers. It is a well known fact that secondary education is very important because in most cases the career is based on secondary school subjects. Secondly, private secondary schools offer better academic and extracurricular programs. As a result there are lower drop-out rates. Finally, there is less on-campus violence in private schools as compared to government schools. This is because students realise that their parents are spending huge sums of money on their schooling and so they are more serious in studies.
On the downside, there is less diversity in private schools as compared to public government) schools. As a result children will meet fewer peers from diverse backgrounds because of the tuition fee. Secondly, private secondary schools don’t conform strictly to educational regulations. So you have to do a lot of effort to select the right school for your child.
Finally, these schools are very expensive and consequently increase the gap between the rich and the poor. The children from affluent backgrounds can afford these schools and get quality education because of which they get into the best universities for higher education. The disadvantaged children of poor backgrounds find it very difficult to compete with them in all spheres of life. So, these create an imbalance in society.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, private secondary schools are providing quality education and are a boon for society. However, they should have some relaxation in fees for the meritorious students of poor backgrounds so that their disadvantages are minimised.
On the positive side, most of the private schools offer smaller classroom size and so the child can receive more individual attention from teachers. It is a well known fact that secondary education is very important because in most cases the career is based on secondary school subjects. Secondly, private secondary schools offer better academic and extracurricular programs. As a result there are lower drop-out rates. Finally, there is less on-campus violence in private schools as compared to government schools. This is because students realise that their parents are spending huge sums of money on their schooling and so they are more serious in studies.
On the downside, there is less diversity in private schools as compared to public government) schools. As a result children will meet fewer peers from diverse backgrounds because of the tuition fee. Secondly, private secondary schools don’t conform strictly to educational regulations. So you have to do a lot of effort to select the right school for your child.
Finally, these schools are very expensive and consequently increase the gap between the rich and the poor. The children from affluent backgrounds can afford these schools and get quality education because of which they get into the best universities for higher education. The disadvantaged children of poor backgrounds find it very difficult to compete with them in all spheres of life. So, these create an imbalance in society.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, private secondary schools are providing quality education and are a boon for society. However, they should have some relaxation in fees for the meritorious students of poor backgrounds so that their disadvantages are minimised.
The best way to solve the world’s environmental problem is to increase the price of fuel. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Excessive traffic and increasing pollution are affecting every major city in the globe. To lessen such problems, some people say that governments should raise the price of fuel such as petrol and diesel. It may help to some extent but I disagree that it is the best solution to solve the problem of environment.
To begin with, the number of cars in a country directly depends on the proportion of the population affluent enough to own cars. As a result, raises in gas price could invoke hard feelings among this segment of people but would not drastically change their behaviour in using cars. Even if the number of cars on road is reduced due to higher gas cost, this is not the best way to solve traffic problems. Such policy would hurt the auto industry, place higher costs on current and prospective car owners, and be detrimental to the economy of a nation. In the long run, the final way out could be the construction of better roads and more effective use of available transport facilities.
Secondly, there is evidence that waste gas from cars is not the leading cause of air pollution. The culprit may be the discharge of polluting substances into the atmosphere due to the rapidly growing manufacturing industry. As a result, reduction of the number of cars would not return us a blue sky and fresh air. We could better handle this problem if we could increase control over industrial waste-discharge and adopt more environmental friendly materials and production equipment.
Finally, other measures like the application of cheaper and cleaner energy resources could also be a better solution. For example, we now have the ability to make cell-powered or even solar-powered cars. Such energy is completely clean and plentiful.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, it is not the best way to control traffic and pollution by increasing gas price because such action will hurt consumers and economy without achieving what it is aimed for. Measures such as construction of better transport facilities and development of new energy resources could be more effective solutions.
To begin with, the number of cars in a country directly depends on the proportion of the population affluent enough to own cars. As a result, raises in gas price could invoke hard feelings among this segment of people but would not drastically change their behaviour in using cars. Even if the number of cars on road is reduced due to higher gas cost, this is not the best way to solve traffic problems. Such policy would hurt the auto industry, place higher costs on current and prospective car owners, and be detrimental to the economy of a nation. In the long run, the final way out could be the construction of better roads and more effective use of available transport facilities.
Secondly, there is evidence that waste gas from cars is not the leading cause of air pollution. The culprit may be the discharge of polluting substances into the atmosphere due to the rapidly growing manufacturing industry. As a result, reduction of the number of cars would not return us a blue sky and fresh air. We could better handle this problem if we could increase control over industrial waste-discharge and adopt more environmental friendly materials and production equipment.
Finally, other measures like the application of cheaper and cleaner energy resources could also be a better solution. For example, we now have the ability to make cell-powered or even solar-powered cars. Such energy is completely clean and plentiful.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, it is not the best way to control traffic and pollution by increasing gas price because such action will hurt consumers and economy without achieving what it is aimed for. Measures such as construction of better transport facilities and development of new energy resources could be more effective solutions.
Some people prefer to provide help and support directly to those in the local community who need it. Others, however, prefer to give money to national and international charitable organisations. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
“To have enough to share; to know the joy of giving; to thrill with all the sweets of life - is living”. Helping others is a very virtuous thing. There are basically two ways to help. One is by offering support to those around you who need your help and the second is through national and international charitable organisations. In this essay I intend to delve into the benefits of both approaches.
There are many advantages of direct help. Firstly, a person remains directly in touch with the needy. You can see how your money is being used. There are no mediators and so there are no chances of corruption. It has been well said that charity begins at home. Naturally, if you help those around you, the people in your locality love and respect you and you enjoy a better status in life.
There are also many advantages of helping through national and international organisations. You can work on a larger platform and provide help for global issues. A larger platform is a must if you have a lot to offer in charity. Help activities can be better spread through a larger network. You feel part of a global village. Help need not be always in the form of money. It can be in the form of services also. For example, if you are a doctor, you can provide medical aid and if you are a teacher, you can volunteer to teach in the under-developed nations.
Help in any form is good. The condition of one’s country could influence your way of helping. If you belong to a developed country, where even the poorest of the poor has the basic amenities of life, it would be better to help through national and international charitable organisations but if you belong to a developing or underdeveloped country and have the resources to help, then it would be better to help those around you.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that it is human nature to help those who need it. Providing direct help and making donations through charitable organisations are just two different ways of achieving the same goal.
There are many advantages of direct help. Firstly, a person remains directly in touch with the needy. You can see how your money is being used. There are no mediators and so there are no chances of corruption. It has been well said that charity begins at home. Naturally, if you help those around you, the people in your locality love and respect you and you enjoy a better status in life.
There are also many advantages of helping through national and international organisations. You can work on a larger platform and provide help for global issues. A larger platform is a must if you have a lot to offer in charity. Help activities can be better spread through a larger network. You feel part of a global village. Help need not be always in the form of money. It can be in the form of services also. For example, if you are a doctor, you can provide medical aid and if you are a teacher, you can volunteer to teach in the under-developed nations.
Help in any form is good. The condition of one’s country could influence your way of helping. If you belong to a developed country, where even the poorest of the poor has the basic amenities of life, it would be better to help through national and international charitable organisations but if you belong to a developing or underdeveloped country and have the resources to help, then it would be better to help those around you.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that it is human nature to help those who need it. Providing direct help and making donations through charitable organisations are just two different ways of achieving the same goal.
Some people think that using animals for experimentation purpose is cruel, but other people think that it is necessary for the development of science. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Animal experimentation has been a debated issue for many decades. Some people believe that scientists’ locking up animals in a laboratory environment is not what nature intended – and they are probably right. Others believe laboratory animals perform a great service for humankind.
For many years now, scientists have been working hard to develop cures for diseases.
From time to time, new medicines and drugs are created which may be a solution to a serious illness affecting mankind. In order to determine if there is any level of danger in these drugs, these are first tested on animals. For example, who has not heard of the Thalidomide case? In 1952, a drug was used for vomiting of pregnancy. Obviously, it was not tested properly. All the children born had seal-like limbs. By the time it was known that thalidomide was responsible, it was too late and much harm had been done.
Another reason for justification of animal experimentation is that the life span of guinea pigs used for experimentation is very small, only 3-4 years and so the effect of drugs can be tested over generations. Even if humans volunteered for testing, it would not help to test whether the effect passed from one generation to the other.
The arguments against animal experimentation are that animals are also sentient beings and we have no right to exploit them for our selfish motives. Secondly, they are very different from humans and so what is tested on animals cannot be applied to humans. Finally, unnecessary experiments are done just for new cosmetics which are not even needed, which is bad.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that animals are not humans. Although the life of animals in a lab is regrettable, I much prefer a guinea pig to die than a human being. The human need must always come first. It is sad that any living thing must suffer but the use of laboratory animals in testing new products made today goes a long way toward helping humankind enjoy a better tomorrow.
For many years now, scientists have been working hard to develop cures for diseases.
From time to time, new medicines and drugs are created which may be a solution to a serious illness affecting mankind. In order to determine if there is any level of danger in these drugs, these are first tested on animals. For example, who has not heard of the Thalidomide case? In 1952, a drug was used for vomiting of pregnancy. Obviously, it was not tested properly. All the children born had seal-like limbs. By the time it was known that thalidomide was responsible, it was too late and much harm had been done.
Another reason for justification of animal experimentation is that the life span of guinea pigs used for experimentation is very small, only 3-4 years and so the effect of drugs can be tested over generations. Even if humans volunteered for testing, it would not help to test whether the effect passed from one generation to the other.
The arguments against animal experimentation are that animals are also sentient beings and we have no right to exploit them for our selfish motives. Secondly, they are very different from humans and so what is tested on animals cannot be applied to humans. Finally, unnecessary experiments are done just for new cosmetics which are not even needed, which is bad.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that animals are not humans. Although the life of animals in a lab is regrettable, I much prefer a guinea pig to die than a human being. The human need must always come first. It is sad that any living thing must suffer but the use of laboratory animals in testing new products made today goes a long way toward helping humankind enjoy a better tomorrow.
Housing shortage in big cities can cause severe social consequences. Some people think only government action can solve this problem. To what extent do you agree or disagree？
Big cities act as magnets for everyone. Therefore it is increasingly difficult for ordinary people to have somewhere to call home in big cities due to housing shortage, especially the lack of affordable housing. Some people think only government has the power to solve this problem. I completely agree with this statement.
The main reason for housing shortage in large cities is the burgeoning urban population. The situation goes from bad to worse as each year millions of job seekers rush into the city to try their lucky break and the majority of them eventually get settled down, which makes housing shortage even more serious. Careful planning of cities is required to address the issue and obviously, only the government has the power to address this problem.
Even if the population were indeed under control, we still need more apartment buildings to house people who have already worked and lived in the city without decent housing. Again, only the government can decide which old buildings should be demolished to make way for new ones and which area could be designated for residential housing development. Of course, individuals can have their voice heard, but the final decision has to be made by the government.
Another reason that causes housing shortage is those in the real estate business raise the cost of housing exorbitantly. To stop those profit-making housing developers and real estate brokers from pushing up the prices of housing, effective rules and regulations are needed, which can be done by the government. As for the housing projects for low-income families, we can only depend on the government, too.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that only the government action can solve the problem of housing shortage in big cities.
The main reason for housing shortage in large cities is the burgeoning urban population. The situation goes from bad to worse as each year millions of job seekers rush into the city to try their lucky break and the majority of them eventually get settled down, which makes housing shortage even more serious. Careful planning of cities is required to address the issue and obviously, only the government has the power to address this problem.
Even if the population were indeed under control, we still need more apartment buildings to house people who have already worked and lived in the city without decent housing. Again, only the government can decide which old buildings should be demolished to make way for new ones and which area could be designated for residential housing development. Of course, individuals can have their voice heard, but the final decision has to be made by the government.
Another reason that causes housing shortage is those in the real estate business raise the cost of housing exorbitantly. To stop those profit-making housing developers and real estate brokers from pushing up the prices of housing, effective rules and regulations are needed, which can be done by the government. As for the housing projects for low-income families, we can only depend on the government, too.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that only the government action can solve the problem of housing shortage in big cities.
Some people think history has nothing or little to tell us, but others think that studying the past history can help us better understand the present. Please discuss the two views and give your own opinion.
History refers to all the things that happened in the past, especially the political, social, or economic development of a nation. Literally, everything, including a nation, a city, a town, a subject, a business, and even a product, has its unique history. Some individuals are of the opinion that studying past history is useless today but others believe it is very essential to know history to better understand the present. I intend to discuss both sides of the argument in this essay.
Undoubtedly, the present is the continuation of the past. Therefore, studying the past history can enable us to better understand what is going on around us. For example, if we are equipped with relevant knowledge of history, it will be easier for us to understand the evolution of mankind. It would also tell us how we progressed and reached where we are today. We would also know how technology developed step by step. History can serve us as a guide because of which we do not repeat the mistakes of yesteryears. We also get inspiration from the great men of the past through history.
Those opposed to the study of history argue that the past was very different from the present and we cannot apply that knowledge to the present. For example, they say that the French Revolution and the freedom struggle of India have no need to be learnt because those situations will never arise again. What they forget is that this knowledge makes us realise the importance of liberty and self governance.
Opponents of the study of history also claim that history has nothing to do with professionals such as architects and accountants. I believe they would be better in their professions if they know something about the history of architecture or that of accountancy. As a matter of fact, you are supposed to demonstrate some evidence of historical ability if you want to pursue almost any career.
To sum up, studying the past history can not only deepen and widen our knowledge but also help us develop the power of analysis. Thus, we are able to look at what is happening at present from a historical perspective and better understanding. It has been rightly said by Cicero :-
“History is the witness of the times
The torch
The teacher of life
The life of memory
The messenger of antiquity”
Undoubtedly, the present is the continuation of the past. Therefore, studying the past history can enable us to better understand what is going on around us. For example, if we are equipped with relevant knowledge of history, it will be easier for us to understand the evolution of mankind. It would also tell us how we progressed and reached where we are today. We would also know how technology developed step by step. History can serve us as a guide because of which we do not repeat the mistakes of yesteryears. We also get inspiration from the great men of the past through history.
Those opposed to the study of history argue that the past was very different from the present and we cannot apply that knowledge to the present. For example, they say that the French Revolution and the freedom struggle of India have no need to be learnt because those situations will never arise again. What they forget is that this knowledge makes us realise the importance of liberty and self governance.
Opponents of the study of history also claim that history has nothing to do with professionals such as architects and accountants. I believe they would be better in their professions if they know something about the history of architecture or that of accountancy. As a matter of fact, you are supposed to demonstrate some evidence of historical ability if you want to pursue almost any career.
To sum up, studying the past history can not only deepen and widen our knowledge but also help us develop the power of analysis. Thus, we are able to look at what is happening at present from a historical perspective and better understanding. It has been rightly said by Cicero :-
“History is the witness of the times
The torch
The teacher of life
The life of memory
The messenger of antiquity”
Some people think that national sports teams and individual men and women who represent their country should be financially supported by the government. However, others argue that they should be funded by non-government sources (e.g. Business, scholarships, etc.). Discuss both views and give your opinion.
It is irrefutable that sports holds fascination for almost everyone and winning a game in international sports events such as the World Cup or the Olympic Games is a matter of national honour. It is a highly debatable issue whether the sports team or sportsmen who represent their country should be funded by governments or NGOs. In the following paragraphs I intend to delve into the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches.
The reason why national teams and individual athletes representing a country should be funded by the government is that, first of all, they compete against opponents from all over the globe in international sports events for the whole nation. When they break a record or set up a new record in a world-class tournament, they inspire national pride and arouse patriotism among its citizens. Moreover, they also play a diplomatic function in competitions. They act as brand ambassadors for their country and behaviour helps strengthen the relations between countries and also improve their nation’s image.
Those in favour of NGOs funding the national sports teams argue that this would ease some burden off the government’s shoulders. Moreover, these businesses are profit driven so they would provide the best coaching and facilities to their teams. The reason why they support a team or player is that they want to make use of their market influence to promote their products or services. So, they also get something back by doing so.
I believe that it would be better for government to support the teams because the less popular teams and athletes, who are equally important, are ignored by the businesses and organisations. Without stable financial support available, they would not be able to concentrate on training, and they would not remain dedicated to their sports. Besides, it is still controversial for some industries such as tobacco industry to sponsor sporting events.
To sum up, national sports teams and individual players standing for a nation should be financially supported by the government to achieve the desired performance.
The reason why national teams and individual athletes representing a country should be funded by the government is that, first of all, they compete against opponents from all over the globe in international sports events for the whole nation. When they break a record or set up a new record in a world-class tournament, they inspire national pride and arouse patriotism among its citizens. Moreover, they also play a diplomatic function in competitions. They act as brand ambassadors for their country and behaviour helps strengthen the relations between countries and also improve their nation’s image.
Those in favour of NGOs funding the national sports teams argue that this would ease some burden off the government’s shoulders. Moreover, these businesses are profit driven so they would provide the best coaching and facilities to their teams. The reason why they support a team or player is that they want to make use of their market influence to promote their products or services. So, they also get something back by doing so.
I believe that it would be better for government to support the teams because the less popular teams and athletes, who are equally important, are ignored by the businesses and organisations. Without stable financial support available, they would not be able to concentrate on training, and they would not remain dedicated to their sports. Besides, it is still controversial for some industries such as tobacco industry to sponsor sporting events.
To sum up, national sports teams and individual players standing for a nation should be financially supported by the government to achieve the desired performance.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Some people think that teachers should be responsible for teaching students to judge what is right and wrong so that they can behave well. Others say that teachers should only teach students academic subjects. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
A well known adage from India says "Acharya devo bhava," which means teachers are next to God. Right from the ancient times, teachers are put on the highest position. It is a highly debatable topic whether teachers should be concerned with only academics or also teach manners and etiquettes to children. In this essay I intend to discuss both sides of the argument.
Teacher is like a potter who moulds the earthen vessels in whichever form he wants. A child's mind is like raw clay and is very much ready to be moulded in the shape it is guided to. A good teacher always feels responsible to develop a child's conscience. He has the potential to become a friend, philosopher and guide for his students. With this special position in students' life, he often acts as their role model. His words highly influence the minds of the students. Students always try to imitate his actions or implement his teachings, so he has to be much careful of his behaviour. So, in that respect a teacher has a much more role than just teaching academic subjects.
Furthermore, teachers convey many good things to parents and society through students in many parts of the world. For example, in Nepal, where illiteracy rate is very high, teachers convey many valuable messages such as of personal hygiene through students. When a student goes home and tells his parents that my teacher says we should wash hands before meals, then parents listen. In such set-ups teachers are playing a much greater role than academicians.
On the other hand, those who say that teachers should only concentrate on teaching course material, argue that competition is stiff and if children lag behind in curriculum, they will never be able to catch up with their counterparts in other parts of today’s global village. They opine that rules of behaviour can be taught by parents at home.
In conclusion, I believe that teachers have a much bigger role than just covering the syllabus.
Teacher is like a potter who moulds the earthen vessels in whichever form he wants. A child's mind is like raw clay and is very much ready to be moulded in the shape it is guided to. A good teacher always feels responsible to develop a child's conscience. He has the potential to become a friend, philosopher and guide for his students. With this special position in students' life, he often acts as their role model. His words highly influence the minds of the students. Students always try to imitate his actions or implement his teachings, so he has to be much careful of his behaviour. So, in that respect a teacher has a much more role than just teaching academic subjects.
Furthermore, teachers convey many good things to parents and society through students in many parts of the world. For example, in Nepal, where illiteracy rate is very high, teachers convey many valuable messages such as of personal hygiene through students. When a student goes home and tells his parents that my teacher says we should wash hands before meals, then parents listen. In such set-ups teachers are playing a much greater role than academicians.
On the other hand, those who say that teachers should only concentrate on teaching course material, argue that competition is stiff and if children lag behind in curriculum, they will never be able to catch up with their counterparts in other parts of today’s global village. They opine that rules of behaviour can be taught by parents at home.
In conclusion, I believe that teachers have a much bigger role than just covering the syllabus.
In many countries more and more young people are leaving school but unable to find jobs. What problems do you think youth unemployment causes for individuals and the society? What measures should be taken to reduce the level of unemployment among youngsters?
Young people’s situation and future prospects are of vital concern to us all. Many of them face the problem of unemployment after passing out of school. This essay shall highlight the problems caused by youth unemployment on individuals and society and suggest some ways forward. It has been rightly said – “Of all the aspects of social misery, nothing is so heart breaking as unemployment” Jane Adams
Unemployment has profound effects on the young people. Unemployment affects their psychological and social development. Some may even develop suicidal tendencies or get involved in crime. A significant proportion of young people are not in a position to make a positive transition to adulthood. For some, it will be very difficult to 'catch up', even if circumstances do improve. At a crucial period of life, they are missing out on acquiring and exercising skills, on developing a sense of their competence, on getting the positive feelings about self which come from having a sense of control over their own lives, on being given opportunities to contribute to society, and to feel that they are valued.
On the societal level also there are many effects. There is increased crime in the society which has a very detrimental effect. Young people are energetic and if their energy is not channelized in the right direction then definitely violence and crime is there in the society. Poverty, which is the result of unemployment, also leads to many problems like diminished health standards. So, on the whole, the society suffers.
The solutions are not simple. Education system should be reformed. There are many people without jobs and many jobs are without suitable people. So students should be encouraged to take up those courses which have no dearth of jobs. Government can also provide subsidies to those firms that take on unemployed people. Government can set up industries based on agriculture and also set up cottage industries such as those of carpets, mats and soaps. Finally, government can encourage self employment by giving loans to young people who want to be entrepreneurs.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, youth unemployment is a serious issue and should be dealt with on a war footing as there are a lot of detrimental effects on the individual and society.
Unemployment has profound effects on the young people. Unemployment affects their psychological and social development. Some may even develop suicidal tendencies or get involved in crime. A significant proportion of young people are not in a position to make a positive transition to adulthood. For some, it will be very difficult to 'catch up', even if circumstances do improve. At a crucial period of life, they are missing out on acquiring and exercising skills, on developing a sense of their competence, on getting the positive feelings about self which come from having a sense of control over their own lives, on being given opportunities to contribute to society, and to feel that they are valued.
On the societal level also there are many effects. There is increased crime in the society which has a very detrimental effect. Young people are energetic and if their energy is not channelized in the right direction then definitely violence and crime is there in the society. Poverty, which is the result of unemployment, also leads to many problems like diminished health standards. So, on the whole, the society suffers.
The solutions are not simple. Education system should be reformed. There are many people without jobs and many jobs are without suitable people. So students should be encouraged to take up those courses which have no dearth of jobs. Government can also provide subsidies to those firms that take on unemployed people. Government can set up industries based on agriculture and also set up cottage industries such as those of carpets, mats and soaps. Finally, government can encourage self employment by giving loans to young people who want to be entrepreneurs.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, youth unemployment is a serious issue and should be dealt with on a war footing as there are a lot of detrimental effects on the individual and society.
More and more measures to improve the security in large urban areas have been introduced in many countries because of the increased crime. Do the benefits of these measures outweigh the drawbacks?
Crime and the fear of crime are very big concerns in big cities and so many security measures have been introduced to tackle crime. In this essay I intend to delve into the advantages and disadvantages of these methods. The advantages definitely outweigh the disadvantages.
One such measure is the security cameras which have become ubiquitous in many countries. Earlier they appeared only in banks and at high-security areas but now they are seen in public places such as malls, streets, stadiums and transport. Surveillance cameras have several benefits. An obvious benefit is that the police can catch criminals in the act, thus reducing crime. This has made the streets safer for ordinary people. A more important point is that criminals, particularly young offenders or petty criminals are deterred. They will not be tempted to carry out crimes, and thus society will be a lot safer. Cameras are also cost-effective and unobtrusive. Authorities do not need to spend large amounts of money on police.
Another security measure is the computerised data collection of individuals. This also helps the police force to operate more effectively. The data can be updated regularly and data retrieval is very easy and quick. These methods are also cost effective. Other Methods like police patrolling on the roads has also been intensified. These methods bring a sense of security in the minds of people.
However, some people object to these measures. The biggest objection concerns privacy. Many people feel that they should be free to travel or move around a shop, mall, street or country without being photographed or recorded. They feel that being watched constantly is like being in a jail, and that ordinary people are losing their freedom because of these devices. Even the computerised data collection of individuals can go in wrong hands.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, there are definite advantages to using such measures, but we need to balance the need for security with respect for the individual's privacy and freedom. If this is done then definitely the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
One such measure is the security cameras which have become ubiquitous in many countries. Earlier they appeared only in banks and at high-security areas but now they are seen in public places such as malls, streets, stadiums and transport. Surveillance cameras have several benefits. An obvious benefit is that the police can catch criminals in the act, thus reducing crime. This has made the streets safer for ordinary people. A more important point is that criminals, particularly young offenders or petty criminals are deterred. They will not be tempted to carry out crimes, and thus society will be a lot safer. Cameras are also cost-effective and unobtrusive. Authorities do not need to spend large amounts of money on police.
Another security measure is the computerised data collection of individuals. This also helps the police force to operate more effectively. The data can be updated regularly and data retrieval is very easy and quick. These methods are also cost effective. Other Methods like police patrolling on the roads has also been intensified. These methods bring a sense of security in the minds of people.
However, some people object to these measures. The biggest objection concerns privacy. Many people feel that they should be free to travel or move around a shop, mall, street or country without being photographed or recorded. They feel that being watched constantly is like being in a jail, and that ordinary people are losing their freedom because of these devices. Even the computerised data collection of individuals can go in wrong hands.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, there are definite advantages to using such measures, but we need to balance the need for security with respect for the individual's privacy and freedom. If this is done then definitely the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
In the last century when a human astronaut first arrived on the Moon he said: "It is a big step for mankind". But some people think it makes little difference to our daily life. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Almost every day we read something in the papers about the latest exciting developments in the space race. Many people are of the view that all the money and energy spent on space exploration and research is a complete waste because it has no effect on our daily life. I, however disagree. In the following paragraphs I shall discuss how space research has touched our lives in more ways than one.
The technology that put men on the moon, launched space shuttles and will build a space station has found its way into everyday life on earth. Common secondary uses of space research are called spin-offs. The common smoke detector used in homes was first prepared for spacecrafts as a warning system. Computer bar codes in retail stores, shock absorbing shoes used by tennis players and athletes, lightweight materials used for helmets and sporting materials and non stick coating used in pans were all first developed as part of space research.
Space technology has provided many benefits to the medical field as well. Pace makers used to treat cardiac as well as remote monitoring devices for intensive care patients and portable medical equipment carried aboard ambulances are but a few applications of space technology providing daily benefits in hospitals, offices and homes. Artificial limbs of lesser weight are also a by-product of space research and these are a blessing for the physically challenged.
Not only that, it is well known that global warming will soon transform our Earth into a boiling pot. Then it would be very essential to find alternative places to live. If we are able to find signs of life elsewhere in space it would be a jackpot for mankind.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that space exploration and research has touched our everyday lives in numerous ways. So, it definitely is a big step for mankind.
The technology that put men on the moon, launched space shuttles and will build a space station has found its way into everyday life on earth. Common secondary uses of space research are called spin-offs. The common smoke detector used in homes was first prepared for spacecrafts as a warning system. Computer bar codes in retail stores, shock absorbing shoes used by tennis players and athletes, lightweight materials used for helmets and sporting materials and non stick coating used in pans were all first developed as part of space research.
Space technology has provided many benefits to the medical field as well. Pace makers used to treat cardiac as well as remote monitoring devices for intensive care patients and portable medical equipment carried aboard ambulances are but a few applications of space technology providing daily benefits in hospitals, offices and homes. Artificial limbs of lesser weight are also a by-product of space research and these are a blessing for the physically challenged.
Not only that, it is well known that global warming will soon transform our Earth into a boiling pot. Then it would be very essential to find alternative places to live. If we are able to find signs of life elsewhere in space it would be a jackpot for mankind.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that space exploration and research has touched our everyday lives in numerous ways. So, it definitely is a big step for mankind.
Some people believe that air travel should be restricted because it causes serious pollution and uses up the world's fuel resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is irrefutable that air travel causes pollution and uses a lot of fuel, bit I disagree that air travel should be restricted. Restricting air travel would solve some problems but would lead to many other problems.
At a time when people all over the world worry about the decreasing level of fossil fuels and global warming, it is right to take action to save the planet earth. However, to simply discourage flights is not the answer. International tourism has become the backbone of many economies of the world. Many countries are earning from tourism. Many people are employed in this industry. Many businesses like hotels and leisure centres are dependent on tourists. So, if we discourage international tourism, it would create new and even worse problems. Many businesses would go broke and many people would be without jobs.
Air flight also enables intercultural exchanges between countries. The advent of cheap air fare makes it possible for people the world over to travel regularly, regardless of the purpose of the trip. Therefore, people have the opportunities to learn from different cultures and have a better understanding of countries they used to be unfamiliar with. This, in turn, enhances cultural communications between countries.
It is true that air travel consumes oil, but other modes of transportation are also causing pollution and using fuel. Discouraging private cars and encouraging people to use public transport could help save the environmental resources in a big way. Therefore it would be a very unpractical decision to restrict air travel at the cost of people’s mobility, or worse, at the cost of the development of the economy. Technology could also be used to produce more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient engines.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, instead of restricting air travel, we should develop more efficient engine that produces more energy output with less fuel and fewer major air pollutants. We should also focus on limiting private vehicles and encouraging public transport.
At a time when people all over the world worry about the decreasing level of fossil fuels and global warming, it is right to take action to save the planet earth. However, to simply discourage flights is not the answer. International tourism has become the backbone of many economies of the world. Many countries are earning from tourism. Many people are employed in this industry. Many businesses like hotels and leisure centres are dependent on tourists. So, if we discourage international tourism, it would create new and even worse problems. Many businesses would go broke and many people would be without jobs.
Air flight also enables intercultural exchanges between countries. The advent of cheap air fare makes it possible for people the world over to travel regularly, regardless of the purpose of the trip. Therefore, people have the opportunities to learn from different cultures and have a better understanding of countries they used to be unfamiliar with. This, in turn, enhances cultural communications between countries.
It is true that air travel consumes oil, but other modes of transportation are also causing pollution and using fuel. Discouraging private cars and encouraging people to use public transport could help save the environmental resources in a big way. Therefore it would be a very unpractical decision to restrict air travel at the cost of people’s mobility, or worse, at the cost of the development of the economy. Technology could also be used to produce more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient engines.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, instead of restricting air travel, we should develop more efficient engine that produces more energy output with less fuel and fewer major air pollutants. We should also focus on limiting private vehicles and encouraging public transport.
In many countries, the proportion of older people is steadily increasing. Does this trend have more positive or negative effects on the society?
Thanks to improvements in standards of living and medical advances, people’s life expectancy has increased to an unprecedented level. This has brought many demographic changes. Today’s society can be called a graying society. This trend has both merits and demerits which I shall highlight in this essay. Overall, the negative effects are much more.
There would be many pros of living longer. In a way, it would be good for people who want to see their grand-grandchildren. Old generation would be able to share more experiences with young generations, so the youth would benefit. The families would get good support of elders and would be able to keep their culture and traditions alive for a longer time. One would get a chance to see frequent changes in technology and lifestyle and enjoy a life full of comforts for more years.
On the other hand, as the people would grow old, they would go on becoming weaker and weaker and would have to depend on their families to fulfill their needs. The families may get tired of their responsibilities in the long run. There would be a wider generation gap, and the old generation would get a culture shock. If people live long, then retirement would be at an older age and it would surely lead to unemployment problems. Moreover, they might get bored of living such a long life as there would be no goals for them.
What we have to accept is that increased life expectancy is something we have to face more and more in the future. If proper steps are not taken then it would be a big burden on government as it has to provide social security. The elderly are not working and so are not paying taxes. They are totally dependent on their families and the governments.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, even though the aging trend can bring some benefits to the society, the cons far outweigh the pros. Therefore, effective solutions should be found to reduce its adverse effects, especially on the productivity of the society.
There would be many pros of living longer. In a way, it would be good for people who want to see their grand-grandchildren. Old generation would be able to share more experiences with young generations, so the youth would benefit. The families would get good support of elders and would be able to keep their culture and traditions alive for a longer time. One would get a chance to see frequent changes in technology and lifestyle and enjoy a life full of comforts for more years.
On the other hand, as the people would grow old, they would go on becoming weaker and weaker and would have to depend on their families to fulfill their needs. The families may get tired of their responsibilities in the long run. There would be a wider generation gap, and the old generation would get a culture shock. If people live long, then retirement would be at an older age and it would surely lead to unemployment problems. Moreover, they might get bored of living such a long life as there would be no goals for them.
What we have to accept is that increased life expectancy is something we have to face more and more in the future. If proper steps are not taken then it would be a big burden on government as it has to provide social security. The elderly are not working and so are not paying taxes. They are totally dependent on their families and the governments.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, even though the aging trend can bring some benefits to the society, the cons far outweigh the pros. Therefore, effective solutions should be found to reduce its adverse effects, especially on the productivity of the society.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Today, the advanced science and technology have made great changes to people's life, but artists such as musicians, painters and writers are still highly valued. What can arts tell us about life that science and technology cannot?
It is irrefutable that artists as well as scientists bring many benefits to society. The role of art as well as science is different yet inextricably linked. In the following paragraphs I intend to delve into the role of both in our lives. What is certain is that both types are valuable, priceless and irreplaceable for every society.
The contributions of artists to the society are very essential. Art can bring out people’s creativity, views and personalities. For example, we learn about our history, traditions and culture through movies, songs and paintings made by artists. Art also entertains us. Another important aspect of this is that art is an ancient means of communication. Our language is a result of people's need to communicate. Appreciation of art is what differentiates us from animals.
From the other side, the contribution of scientists cannot be exaggerated. All humankind is indebted to the scientists because of their work and achievements. Scientists make our life easier. We have cars and aeroplanes to move fast from one place to another. We have microwaves and ready-to-eat foods to make cooking much easier. We have different devices that simplify all we do. Finally, scientists are making great achievements in medicines that make our life longer and happier. Nowadays people have a great opportunity to do many things faster by use of computers.
Science and technology give us better life but arts tell us how to live that life. In Science truths are proved and phenomena are explained. In art they are interpreted. We enjoy what science brings to us. But we cannot be satisfied with the material things. What we want most is the emotion from their deep hearts, which can only be obtained from art. Art cannot be valued as certain amount of money, not like the productions of science. Take Van Gogh’s painting for instance. It cannot be rated by the value of dyes and canvas. The sensation in mankind’s heart is priceless. That’s why art isn't equal to science. Art makes people enjoy life, gives people the pleasure of living from the mental level. That’s where art differs from science.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that artists nourish our souls when scientists and technology feed our minds. So, we cannot eliminate or underestimate one of them.
The contributions of artists to the society are very essential. Art can bring out people’s creativity, views and personalities. For example, we learn about our history, traditions and culture through movies, songs and paintings made by artists. Art also entertains us. Another important aspect of this is that art is an ancient means of communication. Our language is a result of people's need to communicate. Appreciation of art is what differentiates us from animals.
From the other side, the contribution of scientists cannot be exaggerated. All humankind is indebted to the scientists because of their work and achievements. Scientists make our life easier. We have cars and aeroplanes to move fast from one place to another. We have microwaves and ready-to-eat foods to make cooking much easier. We have different devices that simplify all we do. Finally, scientists are making great achievements in medicines that make our life longer and happier. Nowadays people have a great opportunity to do many things faster by use of computers.
Science and technology give us better life but arts tell us how to live that life. In Science truths are proved and phenomena are explained. In art they are interpreted. We enjoy what science brings to us. But we cannot be satisfied with the material things. What we want most is the emotion from their deep hearts, which can only be obtained from art. Art cannot be valued as certain amount of money, not like the productions of science. Take Van Gogh’s painting for instance. It cannot be rated by the value of dyes and canvas. The sensation in mankind’s heart is priceless. That’s why art isn't equal to science. Art makes people enjoy life, gives people the pleasure of living from the mental level. That’s where art differs from science.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that artists nourish our souls when scientists and technology feed our minds. So, we cannot eliminate or underestimate one of them.
There are social, medical and technical problems associated with the use of mobile phones. What forms do they take? Do you agree that the problems outweigh the benefits of mobile phones?
Mobile phone is one of the most important inventions that have brought people tremendous convenience and efficiency. Admittedly, if misused or overused, it may cause some social, medical and technical problems. However, its pros far outnumber its cons.
Mobiles have helped people remain connected with the world from wherever they are. Distance is not a barrier any more there is a sense of security if you know you have a gadget with which you can be in touch with your near and dear ones. At the time of emergencies and calamities, they are one of the most used tools for supplying immediate help.
Mobile phones also provide us with facilities like messaging, camera, recording and internet. As a matter of fact, now they can serve as a good replacement of laptop. Business transactions can also take place at any time of the day and family commitments can also be fulfilled while at work. Cell phones also serve as entertainment tools as many games can now be played and some phones have FM radio connection too.
On the downside, mobile phones emit infrared rays which directly affect the body part exposed to. According to Australian Health Research Institute, use of mobile phones can lead to ear, eye and brain cancer besides some other disorders like heart ailments. Overuse of mobiles takes away the privacy and sometimes even the peace of mind. Wherever we are, at work, at home or in a social gathering, we are hammered with unwanted calls or messages. It is a boon to roadside paparazzi for whom taking snaps is just too easy with more advanced mobiles.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, the advantages of the mobile phone far outweigh its disadvantages. Mobile technology definitely has brought a revolution and changed the way to work, to socialise and to entertain, but we must be more wise and responsible in using it.
Mobiles have helped people remain connected with the world from wherever they are. Distance is not a barrier any more there is a sense of security if you know you have a gadget with which you can be in touch with your near and dear ones. At the time of emergencies and calamities, they are one of the most used tools for supplying immediate help.
Mobile phones also provide us with facilities like messaging, camera, recording and internet. As a matter of fact, now they can serve as a good replacement of laptop. Business transactions can also take place at any time of the day and family commitments can also be fulfilled while at work. Cell phones also serve as entertainment tools as many games can now be played and some phones have FM radio connection too.
On the downside, mobile phones emit infrared rays which directly affect the body part exposed to. According to Australian Health Research Institute, use of mobile phones can lead to ear, eye and brain cancer besides some other disorders like heart ailments. Overuse of mobiles takes away the privacy and sometimes even the peace of mind. Wherever we are, at work, at home or in a social gathering, we are hammered with unwanted calls or messages. It is a boon to roadside paparazzi for whom taking snaps is just too easy with more advanced mobiles.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, the advantages of the mobile phone far outweigh its disadvantages. Mobile technology definitely has brought a revolution and changed the way to work, to socialise and to entertain, but we must be more wise and responsible in using it.
Some people believe they should keep all the money they have earned and should not pay tax to the state. Do you agree or disagree?
I disagree with the statement that individuals should not pay taxes to the state. The government runs the country from the taxes it collects. Taxes are collected only from those who earn above a certain minimum limit. It is our moral duty to pay taxes.
Tax money collected by government is used to fund basic amenities, provide various services to citizens and for government administration and projects, running of jails and defence system, and many other operations. It is not wrong to say that "taxes run a country." Thus, it is very important for a government to make people pay taxes.
Let us analyse why people do not want to pay taxes. The main reason is their dissatisfaction with government in serving them. They blame government for things like lack of infrastructure, poverty and unemployment, but they are not completely wrong as tax revenue is misused in some or the other way in every country. In developed countries, however, because of higher satisfaction from government's functioning, citizens may be more willing to pay taxes. Another factor generating dissatisfaction is the tax structure itself. Often the tax system is complex and it drives people away from paying taxes. It is also felt that the tax rates are high and tax slabs are unequal. So they feel it is not unethical if one goes for tax avoidance or tax evasion.
Not paying taxes can drastically affect a country's revenue generation, my own country, India, for that matter. But then, it is equally desired that government come up with a fair tax structure and also make people aware where the taxes are being diverted. Even lowering the tax rates can help a country increase its tax collection as it would increase compliance among the taxpayers. Tax reform should also be fast so that no public grievance or non-compliance remains for long. A proper tax system backed up with strict tax laws can produce the best results.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that that it is the duty of every citizen to pay tax and the duty of every government to use it appropriately in public interest.
Tax money collected by government is used to fund basic amenities, provide various services to citizens and for government administration and projects, running of jails and defence system, and many other operations. It is not wrong to say that "taxes run a country." Thus, it is very important for a government to make people pay taxes.
Let us analyse why people do not want to pay taxes. The main reason is their dissatisfaction with government in serving them. They blame government for things like lack of infrastructure, poverty and unemployment, but they are not completely wrong as tax revenue is misused in some or the other way in every country. In developed countries, however, because of higher satisfaction from government's functioning, citizens may be more willing to pay taxes. Another factor generating dissatisfaction is the tax structure itself. Often the tax system is complex and it drives people away from paying taxes. It is also felt that the tax rates are high and tax slabs are unequal. So they feel it is not unethical if one goes for tax avoidance or tax evasion.
Not paying taxes can drastically affect a country's revenue generation, my own country, India, for that matter. But then, it is equally desired that government come up with a fair tax structure and also make people aware where the taxes are being diverted. Even lowering the tax rates can help a country increase its tax collection as it would increase compliance among the taxpayers. Tax reform should also be fast so that no public grievance or non-compliance remains for long. A proper tax system backed up with strict tax laws can produce the best results.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that that it is the duty of every citizen to pay tax and the duty of every government to use it appropriately in public interest.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Some people think that criminals should not be imprisoned. Instead, education and job training should replace the former to deal with criminals. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There are many different opinions on the best way to reduce crime. The traditional solution is to punish the criminals by putting them in prison. Some hold the view that education and job training are the long term solutions to cut crime. In my opinion, prison is the only answer in a few situations, but in most cases education, vocational training and rehabilitation are better.
Prison is the only answer in case of criminals who are a risk to the society, such as murderers. They cannot be made to mix with society. Some people also say that people would not be afraid of doing crime if fear of imprisonment is not there. But I still feel that in majority of cases, we can do without prisons.
In traditional prisons, people learn a lot about crime and so when they leave prison they will commit even more crime. In other words prisons act as universities of crime. So for petty offenders like shop-lifters and pick-pockets should be given some vocational training and education. It is a well not fact that the basic causes of crime are poverty, illiteracy and unemployment. So, if we provide education and job training then we would be removing the causes of crime. If criminals are rehabilitated by some form of employment then they would certainly not re-offend.
Furthermore, the prisons are expensive to maintain. The government can spend that money on other important matters such as education and healthcare. This would ease some burden from the government’s shoulders. The petty and minor criminals can also be employed in some community service projects after providing education and vocational training.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that we should hate the crime and not the criminal. To fight crime we should focus on the causes of crime. Education and job training help to rehabilitate the criminals. So, people who commit less serious crimes should not be sent to prison. Focus should be on reforming them.
Prison is the only answer in case of criminals who are a risk to the society, such as murderers. They cannot be made to mix with society. Some people also say that people would not be afraid of doing crime if fear of imprisonment is not there. But I still feel that in majority of cases, we can do without prisons.
In traditional prisons, people learn a lot about crime and so when they leave prison they will commit even more crime. In other words prisons act as universities of crime. So for petty offenders like shop-lifters and pick-pockets should be given some vocational training and education. It is a well not fact that the basic causes of crime are poverty, illiteracy and unemployment. So, if we provide education and job training then we would be removing the causes of crime. If criminals are rehabilitated by some form of employment then they would certainly not re-offend.
Furthermore, the prisons are expensive to maintain. The government can spend that money on other important matters such as education and healthcare. This would ease some burden from the government’s shoulders. The petty and minor criminals can also be employed in some community service projects after providing education and vocational training.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that we should hate the crime and not the criminal. To fight crime we should focus on the causes of crime. Education and job training help to rehabilitate the criminals. So, people who commit less serious crimes should not be sent to prison. Focus should be on reforming them.
Many people think it is important to protect the environment, but they make no effort on it themselves. Why is it and what is your opinion?
It is irrefutable that environmental damage is occurring at a very fast pace and people know that it is a global priority today to save the environment. However, when it comes to doing something, no one steps forward. In this essay I intend to delve into the causes of this phenomenon and suggest simple measures which can be taken at the individual level.
There are many reasons behind the indifferent attitude of people. The main reason is that we people don’t know that we are also the cause of environmental damage. We don’t realise that global warming is the result of billions of decisions. We are cutting down trees for our needs; we are using too many luxuries in the home; we are driving too many cars and we are wasting resources like fresh water. If only awareness is brought about these things then many people would take a step forward in this direction.
People are also not doing anything because they think that it is a global problem and only government action can solve it. What has to be made clear is that small measure taken at the individual level will take mammoth dimensions when mounted up. For example, in a country like India with a population of more than one billion, if each person plants a tree and nurtures it for the first few months, the result would be un-imaginable. We can all take simple steps like recycling things such as newspapers, plastics and glass. We could also walk for short distances instead of using our vehicles and for long distances we could use the public transport.
Another reason why people do little about the environment is that people have become very busy in their pursuit of wealth and fame that they have no time to think about the environment. What they don’t realise that if nothing is done today, it might be too late tomorrow. The rate at which global warming is occurring would soon transform the Earth into a boiling pot and it would be un-inhabitable for us one day.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that the onus of saving the environment is not just on the shoulders of the governments and big industries. We all must come forward and do our bit to save the environment before it is too late. It has rightly been said –“little drops of water, little grains of sand, make the mighty ocean and the vast land”
There are many reasons behind the indifferent attitude of people. The main reason is that we people don’t know that we are also the cause of environmental damage. We don’t realise that global warming is the result of billions of decisions. We are cutting down trees for our needs; we are using too many luxuries in the home; we are driving too many cars and we are wasting resources like fresh water. If only awareness is brought about these things then many people would take a step forward in this direction.
People are also not doing anything because they think that it is a global problem and only government action can solve it. What has to be made clear is that small measure taken at the individual level will take mammoth dimensions when mounted up. For example, in a country like India with a population of more than one billion, if each person plants a tree and nurtures it for the first few months, the result would be un-imaginable. We can all take simple steps like recycling things such as newspapers, plastics and glass. We could also walk for short distances instead of using our vehicles and for long distances we could use the public transport.
Another reason why people do little about the environment is that people have become very busy in their pursuit of wealth and fame that they have no time to think about the environment. What they don’t realise that if nothing is done today, it might be too late tomorrow. The rate at which global warming is occurring would soon transform the Earth into a boiling pot and it would be un-inhabitable for us one day.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that the onus of saving the environment is not just on the shoulders of the governments and big industries. We all must come forward and do our bit to save the environment before it is too late. It has rightly been said –“little drops of water, little grains of sand, make the mighty ocean and the vast land”
Nowadays education quality is very low. Some people think we should encourage our students to evaluate and criticise their teachers. Others believe that it will result in a loss of respect and discipline in the classroom. Discuss on both sides.
It is a highly debated issue whether students should evaluate their teachers after each course. Some people believe the system has many advantages to the students and the teachers. Others argue that it would lead to poor discipline in the classroom. Indeed, evaluation of teachers by students has both pros and cons.
There are many drawbacks in student assessment. First of all, students are very young and, compared with their teachers, are less knowledgeable both in theory and practice on a subject. Therefore, they are unable to evaluate their teachers’ performance in a sound way. Secondly, student assessment would lead to poor discipline in the classroom. If each of the students is allowed to comment on the teacher’s performance, then there would be chaos in the classroom. Thirdly, in order to gain a better evaluation, teachers would seek to please the students and not bother about the content of their lectures. This would harm the students’ academic performance in the long run.
However, advocates of student assessment have their reasons. Firstly, this kind of feedback can be used to improve teachers’ performance. Teaching methods can only be successful if they are student-centered. Therefore, listening to the students’ constructive suggestions, teachers will have a better idea of what students’ needs are and can then adjust their teaching to meet them. Secondly, the process of writing evaluations will help the students think in their own way independently. Students should be encouraged to learn by even challenging their teachers’ thinking. Thirdly, it would help the administrators. Teachers who provide good educational services could be retained and others could be laid off. So, all teachers would strive to do their best. This would be a win-win situation for all.
In my opinion, student evaluations of teachers would be beneficial to both teachers and students. Of course, the evaluations must be done responsibly, but when the students feel that their views are important and are listened to, I think they will do their best to contribute to the improvement in education.
There are many drawbacks in student assessment. First of all, students are very young and, compared with their teachers, are less knowledgeable both in theory and practice on a subject. Therefore, they are unable to evaluate their teachers’ performance in a sound way. Secondly, student assessment would lead to poor discipline in the classroom. If each of the students is allowed to comment on the teacher’s performance, then there would be chaos in the classroom. Thirdly, in order to gain a better evaluation, teachers would seek to please the students and not bother about the content of their lectures. This would harm the students’ academic performance in the long run.
However, advocates of student assessment have their reasons. Firstly, this kind of feedback can be used to improve teachers’ performance. Teaching methods can only be successful if they are student-centered. Therefore, listening to the students’ constructive suggestions, teachers will have a better idea of what students’ needs are and can then adjust their teaching to meet them. Secondly, the process of writing evaluations will help the students think in their own way independently. Students should be encouraged to learn by even challenging their teachers’ thinking. Thirdly, it would help the administrators. Teachers who provide good educational services could be retained and others could be laid off. So, all teachers would strive to do their best. This would be a win-win situation for all.
In my opinion, student evaluations of teachers would be beneficial to both teachers and students. Of course, the evaluations must be done responsibly, but when the students feel that their views are important and are listened to, I think they will do their best to contribute to the improvement in education.
Poor students or students who come from rural areas often find it is difficult to get access to the university education, so some people think universities should make it easier for them to study at. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
I agree with the statement that universities should take a step forward and provide access to education to those from rural backgrounds and those who cannot afford it. In the following paragraphs I intend to discuss why this needs to be done and suggest ways how universities can help.
The main reason why universities should help the disadvantaged sections of the society is that this would help to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. It is a well known fact that higher education raises the level of people both socially and economically. The students of rural backgrounds may not be able to compete with their urban counterparts for entrance to universities. Competition is very stiff nowadays and cut-off rates for engineering, medical and commerce courses is very high.
Another well known fact is that university education is very expensive and is out of the reach of many. Many students from poor backgrounds do not get tertiary education for want of money and so join some job after secondary school. This is very detrimental for their future because they remain at the same level of earning for their whole lives and so cannot progress in life. Even their future generations remain underprivileged.
Universities can help in many ways. They can introduce a rural quota which can help the deserving rural students. Funding can be provided to poor deserving students. Interest free loans which can be returned after the completion of education can be provided to the students. Many leading universities are already doing all that for the needy students. Universities can also provide online and distance education courses at very nominal fees to such students.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that universities should help the poor and rural students because it will reduce inequality among the people and raise the level of the nation as a whole.
The main reason why universities should help the disadvantaged sections of the society is that this would help to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. It is a well known fact that higher education raises the level of people both socially and economically. The students of rural backgrounds may not be able to compete with their urban counterparts for entrance to universities. Competition is very stiff nowadays and cut-off rates for engineering, medical and commerce courses is very high.
Another well known fact is that university education is very expensive and is out of the reach of many. Many students from poor backgrounds do not get tertiary education for want of money and so join some job after secondary school. This is very detrimental for their future because they remain at the same level of earning for their whole lives and so cannot progress in life. Even their future generations remain underprivileged.
Universities can help in many ways. They can introduce a rural quota which can help the deserving rural students. Funding can be provided to poor deserving students. Interest free loans which can be returned after the completion of education can be provided to the students. Many leading universities are already doing all that for the needy students. Universities can also provide online and distance education courses at very nominal fees to such students.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that universities should help the poor and rural students because it will reduce inequality among the people and raise the level of the nation as a whole.
Speak about the importance of explorers in today’s society - How they get motivation to explore new places - Who should give finance to them - Would you like to go on an explorer trip
• It is basic human nature to learn new things and to explore new things
• America was discovered by Columbus and India by Vasco Da Gama
• The 15th to 17th century is called the age of exploration
• In early days, exploration was done to find trading partners, new goods, and new trade routes
• But, it also gave us a lot of geographical knowledge.
• What all we know about the world today is because of these explorers
• Early explorers were mostly from Europe.
• They needed a lot of funding for this purpose.
• They needed ships and many other things to set on their journeys
• In those days, it was very adventurous to go on such trips. The people who went were not sure whether they would return safe and sound or not
• Mostly this funding was provided by their governments
• They also wanted the knowledge of new places
• Nowadays there are a lot of technical advancements and so that we can know about the planet through many other sources like the satellites
• Still, I think there is scope for explorers because when they go to new places they learn about new cultures and also bring back knowledge of the flora and fauna of that place.
• I think it is very adventurous to go on an exploration trip.
• I would really like to go on one. But I don't think it would be possible now
• One day, when I have earned a lot of money and am well settled in life, I would surely go on this adventure
• I feel there are still many unexplored parts of this planet earth
• America was discovered by Columbus and India by Vasco Da Gama
• The 15th to 17th century is called the age of exploration
• In early days, exploration was done to find trading partners, new goods, and new trade routes
• But, it also gave us a lot of geographical knowledge.
• What all we know about the world today is because of these explorers
• Early explorers were mostly from Europe.
• They needed a lot of funding for this purpose.
• They needed ships and many other things to set on their journeys
• In those days, it was very adventurous to go on such trips. The people who went were not sure whether they would return safe and sound or not
• Mostly this funding was provided by their governments
• They also wanted the knowledge of new places
• Nowadays there are a lot of technical advancements and so that we can know about the planet through many other sources like the satellites
• Still, I think there is scope for explorers because when they go to new places they learn about new cultures and also bring back knowledge of the flora and fauna of that place.
• I think it is very adventurous to go on an exploration trip.
• I would really like to go on one. But I don't think it would be possible now
• One day, when I have earned a lot of money and am well settled in life, I would surely go on this adventure
• I feel there are still many unexplored parts of this planet earth
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
More and more people work at home and study at home with the development of computer technology. Do you think it is a positive or negative development?
It is true that the Internet has become an important part of modern life. Telecommuting, which means working from home with the help of telephone lines, and, online and distance education have become very common. This situation has both, advantages as well as disadvantages.
The most important benefit is that it saves time and money of employees and students. They don’t need to waste time going and coming from work or college. They save on the fare also. What is more, they can set their own timetable of work and study. On top of that, people find more time for their hobbies and family commitments. This situation also benefits the physically challenged and those living in remote areas. You can get online education from any university in any part of the world and you can work for any office in any corner of the world. So, technology has given birth to many opportunities for many people for whom none existed earlier. In this sense it is narrowing the bridge between the rich and the poor.
Another big advantage is to the environment. As less people have to move out of their homes, less petrol and diesel is used and less pollution is caused. Traffic congestion, which is a big problem in the cities, is also lessened. We all know that at peak hours, traffic moves at a snail’s pace because of which people are forced to slow down the tempo of life even in this fast-paced world.
On the negative side, there is a decrease in face to face communication which is isolating us socially. Working alone from home can be very boring at times. When you are in a proper office, there is a work atmosphere which keeps you going. Moreover, I do not think it is possible for a computer to be as effective as a real teacher. Many jobs and subjects involve physical action. For example, it would not be possible to study dance or drama without contact with others. If everybody worked and studied from home, imagine how unhealthy and lazy they would become.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that technology has eased our life in many ways and this is both a negative as well as a positive development but on the whole the positive side outweighs the negative side.
The most important benefit is that it saves time and money of employees and students. They don’t need to waste time going and coming from work or college. They save on the fare also. What is more, they can set their own timetable of work and study. On top of that, people find more time for their hobbies and family commitments. This situation also benefits the physically challenged and those living in remote areas. You can get online education from any university in any part of the world and you can work for any office in any corner of the world. So, technology has given birth to many opportunities for many people for whom none existed earlier. In this sense it is narrowing the bridge between the rich and the poor.
Another big advantage is to the environment. As less people have to move out of their homes, less petrol and diesel is used and less pollution is caused. Traffic congestion, which is a big problem in the cities, is also lessened. We all know that at peak hours, traffic moves at a snail’s pace because of which people are forced to slow down the tempo of life even in this fast-paced world.
On the negative side, there is a decrease in face to face communication which is isolating us socially. Working alone from home can be very boring at times. When you are in a proper office, there is a work atmosphere which keeps you going. Moreover, I do not think it is possible for a computer to be as effective as a real teacher. Many jobs and subjects involve physical action. For example, it would not be possible to study dance or drama without contact with others. If everybody worked and studied from home, imagine how unhealthy and lazy they would become.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that technology has eased our life in many ways and this is both a negative as well as a positive development but on the whole the positive side outweighs the negative side.
Memorization of information by frequent repetition, namely rote learning, plays a role in many education systems. To what extent do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
There are different methods of learning. Two such methods are ‘rote learning’ and ‘meaningful learning’. Both have their own pros and cons.
There are many advantages of rote learning. To begin with, it is very helpful where quick memorization is required, such as learning one line in a play or memorizing a telephone number. It is also needed where verbatim recall of definitions or numbers is required. We all know that we need to remember phone numbers, mathematical formulae and definitions as such. If we don’t cram them then we will not be able to reproduce them when needed and if any small part is changed then the whole thing goes wrong. Rote learning is the only way to learn certain things like irregular verbs and the vocabulary of a foreign language. There is no logic behind irregular verbs and so we need to memorise them by heart. Finally, rote learning is used by many students to pass exams.
On the other hand there are some disadvantages of rote learning. Firstly, the knowledge acquired by rote is not retained for long. If a person does not repeat information learnt by rote for few days then the whole thing can be forgotten. Moreover, information learned by rote cannot be applied in a wide variety of new problems or concepts. For example, if we learn something by rote in maths then we cannot apply it in other subjects like physics. In meaningful learning the transferability of knowledge is high. Finally, it can be very boring to learn everything by rote.
Definitely, rote learning should not be the only method of learning. Meaningful learning is a must if we want to progress in life and apply our skills in varied fields. However, rote learning has its own importance in some situations. So, the education systems should incorporate both rote and meaningful learning.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, rather than viewing rote learning as something opposed to understanding, it can be viewed in a complementary role. As the left hand is to the right, so is memory to understanding and reason
There are many advantages of rote learning. To begin with, it is very helpful where quick memorization is required, such as learning one line in a play or memorizing a telephone number. It is also needed where verbatim recall of definitions or numbers is required. We all know that we need to remember phone numbers, mathematical formulae and definitions as such. If we don’t cram them then we will not be able to reproduce them when needed and if any small part is changed then the whole thing goes wrong. Rote learning is the only way to learn certain things like irregular verbs and the vocabulary of a foreign language. There is no logic behind irregular verbs and so we need to memorise them by heart. Finally, rote learning is used by many students to pass exams.
On the other hand there are some disadvantages of rote learning. Firstly, the knowledge acquired by rote is not retained for long. If a person does not repeat information learnt by rote for few days then the whole thing can be forgotten. Moreover, information learned by rote cannot be applied in a wide variety of new problems or concepts. For example, if we learn something by rote in maths then we cannot apply it in other subjects like physics. In meaningful learning the transferability of knowledge is high. Finally, it can be very boring to learn everything by rote.
Definitely, rote learning should not be the only method of learning. Meaningful learning is a must if we want to progress in life and apply our skills in varied fields. However, rote learning has its own importance in some situations. So, the education systems should incorporate both rote and meaningful learning.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, rather than viewing rote learning as something opposed to understanding, it can be viewed in a complementary role. As the left hand is to the right, so is memory to understanding and reason
Because of the global economy, many goods including what we use as daily basic produced by other counties have to be transported for a long distance. To what extent do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
Globalisation has revolutionized our world in many aspects. Now, we don’t belong to a big planet Earth. We belong to a small global village. Everything is available everywhere. There are many advantages and disadvantages of transporting goods over a long distance. In my opinion, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
On the positive side, transporting goods over a long distance gives us a lot of choices. We can taste a variety of fruits and vegetables from all parts of the world. For example, about ten years ago, we hardly saw kiwi fruit which is from New Zealand. But, now it has a place on every fruit stand. Earlier, we had very few shoe brands like Bata and Carona but now the market is flooded with Reeboks, Nike, Adidas and other foreign brands.
Secondly, many people get employment in this field. Small businesses have a chance to expand globally and it increases the overall economy of the country. Finally, it helps in developing good relations between countries which helps in international cooperation and peace. If countries are dependent upon one another’s economic success then armed conflict would be less likely.
On the downside, importing goods can have a negative effect on local culture. This can be seen in countries such as Japan where imported food has become more popular than traditional, local produce, eroding people’s understanding of their own food traditions. A second major disadvantage is pollution. When goods are transported thousands of miles by road, sea and air, it increases pollution from exhaust fumes.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, importing goods has both merits and demerits but the pros outweigh the cons.
On the positive side, transporting goods over a long distance gives us a lot of choices. We can taste a variety of fruits and vegetables from all parts of the world. For example, about ten years ago, we hardly saw kiwi fruit which is from New Zealand. But, now it has a place on every fruit stand. Earlier, we had very few shoe brands like Bata and Carona but now the market is flooded with Reeboks, Nike, Adidas and other foreign brands.
Secondly, many people get employment in this field. Small businesses have a chance to expand globally and it increases the overall economy of the country. Finally, it helps in developing good relations between countries which helps in international cooperation and peace. If countries are dependent upon one another’s economic success then armed conflict would be less likely.
On the downside, importing goods can have a negative effect on local culture. This can be seen in countries such as Japan where imported food has become more popular than traditional, local produce, eroding people’s understanding of their own food traditions. A second major disadvantage is pollution. When goods are transported thousands of miles by road, sea and air, it increases pollution from exhaust fumes.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, importing goods has both merits and demerits but the pros outweigh the cons.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
International travel is becoming cheaper than before, so more and more countries open their doors to tourists. Do the advantages of the increased tourism outweigh the disadvantages?
It is irrefutable that international tourism has taken mammoth dimensions. In fact it has become the backbone of many economies of the world. This situation has both pros and cons. In my opinion, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
International tourism can have many benefits for individuals. The most important benefit is that tourism provides regular employment for many local people who might otherwise be unemployed. They can find work in restaurants or hotels, or with tourist agencies as guides or drivers, for example, and earn regular wages. This, in turn, means that they may be able to save money and improve their standard of living. The second reason is that tourists spend money in the country and this allows local businesses such as restaurants, bars and taxi companies to flourish. In turn, other businesses, food suppliers or petrol stations, for instance, may be established in order to provide services to support the companies which cater for tourists. In other words, the whole economy of the region develops.
A third reason is that in order for tourists to be able to visit remote areas, roads, airports and hotels have to be built and local people also benefit by being able to use these new facilities. Furthermore, when communications improve, it becomes possible for other industries to move into the area, bringing with them more employment opportunities and increased prosperity. A final reason why I am in favour of tourism is that visitors from outside bring fresh ideas and different ways of doing things to the local community. Consequently, local people may learn from tourists. Likewise, visitors learn about the local people and culture, and return home with a deeper understanding of the host country.
On the other hand, that there are some problems associated with international tourism. Firstly, there is the increasing crime rate. Some locals see tourists as easy prey because, not only are they in unfamiliar territory and therefore less able to take care of themselves, but also they carry visible items of wealth, such as cameras and jewellery which can be disposed of quickly for a profit. Another major problem is health. With greater mobility comes greater danger of spreading contagious diseases around the world. Also to be considered is the natural environment, which can be seriously threatened by too many visitors. Australia's Great Barrier Reef, for example, is in danger of being destroyed by tourists and there are plans to restrict visitors to some of the more delicate coral reefs.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that international tourism has both advantages and disadvantages. However, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
International tourism can have many benefits for individuals. The most important benefit is that tourism provides regular employment for many local people who might otherwise be unemployed. They can find work in restaurants or hotels, or with tourist agencies as guides or drivers, for example, and earn regular wages. This, in turn, means that they may be able to save money and improve their standard of living. The second reason is that tourists spend money in the country and this allows local businesses such as restaurants, bars and taxi companies to flourish. In turn, other businesses, food suppliers or petrol stations, for instance, may be established in order to provide services to support the companies which cater for tourists. In other words, the whole economy of the region develops.
A third reason is that in order for tourists to be able to visit remote areas, roads, airports and hotels have to be built and local people also benefit by being able to use these new facilities. Furthermore, when communications improve, it becomes possible for other industries to move into the area, bringing with them more employment opportunities and increased prosperity. A final reason why I am in favour of tourism is that visitors from outside bring fresh ideas and different ways of doing things to the local community. Consequently, local people may learn from tourists. Likewise, visitors learn about the local people and culture, and return home with a deeper understanding of the host country.
On the other hand, that there are some problems associated with international tourism. Firstly, there is the increasing crime rate. Some locals see tourists as easy prey because, not only are they in unfamiliar territory and therefore less able to take care of themselves, but also they carry visible items of wealth, such as cameras and jewellery which can be disposed of quickly for a profit. Another major problem is health. With greater mobility comes greater danger of spreading contagious diseases around the world. Also to be considered is the natural environment, which can be seriously threatened by too many visitors. Australia's Great Barrier Reef, for example, is in danger of being destroyed by tourists and there are plans to restrict visitors to some of the more delicate coral reefs.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that international tourism has both advantages and disadvantages. However, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
Now, a lot of charities and organisations have to publicize their activities by setting up a number of days to name the special day like National Children’s day and National non smoking day. Why do they do so? What are the effects?
Charities and organisations are formed to help the needy sections of society. Generally they are NPOs or non-profit organisations. Nowadays it has been seen that they set up a number of days like ‘Mother’s Day’ and ‘No Smoking Day’. In this essay I shall discuss the causes and effects of this phenomenon.
The main reason why these NPOs do so is to raise funds for their working. This is very essential because for every activity they do to help others, they need money and other resources. When they publicise their activities, they get people’s attention and so people contribute whole-heartedly. Sometimes, in times of calamities, they need a lot of funds and manual help. They need voluntary workers. For example, recently in Ladakh, a cloud-burst caused havoc. So many people lost their lives and there was so much damage of property. The Rotary Club and Jaycee Club of my hometown sent many volunteers to help. The government alone cannot be at all places. Because of such organisations people get timely help and a lot of burden is eased from the government’s shoulders.
When these organisations name special days, it brings people together. With more activities opened and more days named, more and more people will focus their attention and will put their time and energy and will realise the importance of doing for others. As a consequence, community spirit increases in society. As it is nowadays, people are getting self-centred and alienated from each other. So, such days are the need of the day.
Such days keep our youth in touch with our culture and traditions. With the exposure to global culture, youth today are forgetting their traditions. To establish some days may help the young people understand the importance of such events. Such days also increase awareness of offering help selflessly. Hence some virtuous habit may pass from one generation to the other. Finally, such days deter people from bad habits. For e.g. on National No Smoking Day, people are made aware about the harmful effects of smoking.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, charities and NPOs publicise their activities because they need funds and they name certain days so that people come together and celebrate and realise the importance of community and brotherhood.
The main reason why these NPOs do so is to raise funds for their working. This is very essential because for every activity they do to help others, they need money and other resources. When they publicise their activities, they get people’s attention and so people contribute whole-heartedly. Sometimes, in times of calamities, they need a lot of funds and manual help. They need voluntary workers. For example, recently in Ladakh, a cloud-burst caused havoc. So many people lost their lives and there was so much damage of property. The Rotary Club and Jaycee Club of my hometown sent many volunteers to help. The government alone cannot be at all places. Because of such organisations people get timely help and a lot of burden is eased from the government’s shoulders.
When these organisations name special days, it brings people together. With more activities opened and more days named, more and more people will focus their attention and will put their time and energy and will realise the importance of doing for others. As a consequence, community spirit increases in society. As it is nowadays, people are getting self-centred and alienated from each other. So, such days are the need of the day.
Such days keep our youth in touch with our culture and traditions. With the exposure to global culture, youth today are forgetting their traditions. To establish some days may help the young people understand the importance of such events. Such days also increase awareness of offering help selflessly. Hence some virtuous habit may pass from one generation to the other. Finally, such days deter people from bad habits. For e.g. on National No Smoking Day, people are made aware about the harmful effects of smoking.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, charities and NPOs publicise their activities because they need funds and they name certain days so that people come together and celebrate and realise the importance of community and brotherhood.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Once children start school, teachers have more influences on their intellectual and social development than parents. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
I definitely agree with the statement that once children get admission in school, teachers have more impact on them than even their parents. In the following paragraphs, I intend to put forth my arguments in support of my view.
To begin with, children spend quality time with teachers. Although they spend more time with parents at home but this time is not as productive as the small amount of time spent with teachers. We all know that parents are busy with their work most of the time and even if children are around, they hardly pay any attention to them. Teachers, on the other hand are in school for the students. All the time they are either teaching the students or guiding them in extra-curricular activities. They keep children focussed on study and as a result have more intellectual impact on them.
What is more, teachers are role models for students. They are scholars in action. They not only influence intellectually but socially. Students inadvertently follow their teachers’ behaviour too. They observe how the teacher walks, talks and tackles difficult situations. At home they have parents to guide them socially, but it is seen that in nuclear families, parents hardly find time for this. Whatever social skills children learn are from TV or other activities they do at home.
Teachers also guide students for their future careers. Students follow teachers more than parents because they feel that teachers are more aware of the world around them and they have better capability of guiding them. So, they depend on teachers more than parents.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, once the schooling starts, teachers and parents both have influence but teachers influence children more.
To begin with, children spend quality time with teachers. Although they spend more time with parents at home but this time is not as productive as the small amount of time spent with teachers. We all know that parents are busy with their work most of the time and even if children are around, they hardly pay any attention to them. Teachers, on the other hand are in school for the students. All the time they are either teaching the students or guiding them in extra-curricular activities. They keep children focussed on study and as a result have more intellectual impact on them.
What is more, teachers are role models for students. They are scholars in action. They not only influence intellectually but socially. Students inadvertently follow their teachers’ behaviour too. They observe how the teacher walks, talks and tackles difficult situations. At home they have parents to guide them socially, but it is seen that in nuclear families, parents hardly find time for this. Whatever social skills children learn are from TV or other activities they do at home.
Teachers also guide students for their future careers. Students follow teachers more than parents because they feel that teachers are more aware of the world around them and they have better capability of guiding them. So, they depend on teachers more than parents.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, once the schooling starts, teachers and parents both have influence but teachers influence children more.
Aircraft uses more fuel than cars and produces more pollution. Some people suggest the non-essential use of aircraft like international travel should be discouraged. Do you agree or disagree?
It is irrefutable that the fuel consumed by one long-distance flight is consumed by a car in several years’ time, and the amount of pollution it produces is also more. Therefore, some people suggest that non-essential flights, including international travel, should be discouraged. I totally disagree whit this statement. I feel that even though cars produce less pollution and use less fuel, still we should focus on limiting the number of cars. Discouraging flights would lead to many other problems.
At a time when people all over the world worry about the decreasing level of fossil fuels and global warming, it is right to take action to save the planet earth. However, to simply discourage flights is not the answer. International tourism has become the backbone of many economies of the world. Many countries are earning from tourism. Many people are employed in this industry. Many businesses like hotels and leisure centres are dependent on tourists. So, if we discourage international tourism, it would create new and even worse problems. Many businesses would go broke and many people would be without jobs.
Air flight also enables intercultural exchanges between countries. The advent of cheap air fare makes it possible for people the world over to travel regularly, regardless of the purpose of the trip. Therefore, people have the opportunities to learn from different cultures and have a better understanding of countries they used to be unfamiliar with. This, in turn, enhances cultural communications between countries.
What we should do is to limit the use of cars. The number of cars is increasing at a very fast pace. This is creating too many problems. Cars are using too much of fossil fuels; they are creating a lot of pollution; they are leading to traffic congestion on the roads and they are also causing accidents.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, traveling by air should not be discouraged. Instead, the use of cars should be limited.
At a time when people all over the world worry about the decreasing level of fossil fuels and global warming, it is right to take action to save the planet earth. However, to simply discourage flights is not the answer. International tourism has become the backbone of many economies of the world. Many countries are earning from tourism. Many people are employed in this industry. Many businesses like hotels and leisure centres are dependent on tourists. So, if we discourage international tourism, it would create new and even worse problems. Many businesses would go broke and many people would be without jobs.
Air flight also enables intercultural exchanges between countries. The advent of cheap air fare makes it possible for people the world over to travel regularly, regardless of the purpose of the trip. Therefore, people have the opportunities to learn from different cultures and have a better understanding of countries they used to be unfamiliar with. This, in turn, enhances cultural communications between countries.
What we should do is to limit the use of cars. The number of cars is increasing at a very fast pace. This is creating too many problems. Cars are using too much of fossil fuels; they are creating a lot of pollution; they are leading to traffic congestion on the roads and they are also causing accidents.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, traveling by air should not be discouraged. Instead, the use of cars should be limited.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
International travel makes people prejudiced rather than broad-minded. What are its causes and what measures can be taken to solve this problem?
It is irrefutable that international tourism has taken mammoth dimensions. Unfortunately, sometimes, international tourism creates tension rather than understanding between people from different cultures. In this essay I intend to delve into the causes of this situation and suggest some ways forward.
The most important reason why some are opposed to international tourism is that tourists may unknowingly show disrespect for local culture. For instance, we generally cover our heads in a religious place. A tourist may not do so or take his shoes inside a temple. This may offend the local people. Sometimes, youngsters may be attracted towards the western culture which the tourists bring with them and many may find this as a threat to the local culture.
Moreover, the tourist dollar may not be helping the local people. We all know that tourists stay in five star hotels and enjoy the best facilities. They may be taking two showers a day where as the local people may not have enough water to drink. This has been the case in Shimla which is a very popular hill station in Himachal Pradesh India. On top of that when tourists buy souvenirs from local artisans, they bargain a lot. The poor artisans, who look up to tourists for their livelihood, end up earning the bare minimum. Finally, tourism creates pollution, which helps nobody. We are all suffering the consequences of global warming.
The solutions are not simple. We cannot discourage tourism. It is the backbone of many economies of the world. First of all, the tour operators should take the onus of guiding the tourists about the main things of local culture. Secondly, the tourists should stay with locals as paying guests. This would be a win-win situation for both. Local people would earn and the tourist would taste the local culture. Finally, ecotourism should be promoted. For example, if an elephant ride is possible, the tourist should avoid using car. After all a good tourist is one – who takes away nothing but photographs and leaves behind nothing but footprints.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, international tourism does have a downside to it but many steps can be taken to lessen the negative effects.
The most important reason why some are opposed to international tourism is that tourists may unknowingly show disrespect for local culture. For instance, we generally cover our heads in a religious place. A tourist may not do so or take his shoes inside a temple. This may offend the local people. Sometimes, youngsters may be attracted towards the western culture which the tourists bring with them and many may find this as a threat to the local culture.
Moreover, the tourist dollar may not be helping the local people. We all know that tourists stay in five star hotels and enjoy the best facilities. They may be taking two showers a day where as the local people may not have enough water to drink. This has been the case in Shimla which is a very popular hill station in Himachal Pradesh India. On top of that when tourists buy souvenirs from local artisans, they bargain a lot. The poor artisans, who look up to tourists for their livelihood, end up earning the bare minimum. Finally, tourism creates pollution, which helps nobody. We are all suffering the consequences of global warming.
The solutions are not simple. We cannot discourage tourism. It is the backbone of many economies of the world. First of all, the tour operators should take the onus of guiding the tourists about the main things of local culture. Secondly, the tourists should stay with locals as paying guests. This would be a win-win situation for both. Local people would earn and the tourist would taste the local culture. Finally, ecotourism should be promoted. For example, if an elephant ride is possible, the tourist should avoid using car. After all a good tourist is one – who takes away nothing but photographs and leaves behind nothing but footprints.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, international tourism does have a downside to it but many steps can be taken to lessen the negative effects.
Some people think people can exploit animals for any purpose they need, while others do not think so. What is your opinion?
The discussion about whether or not animals should be used for the benefit of humans is a very debatable one. Some individuals are of the opinion that we can exploit animals for our benefit. Others hold the opposite view. It is necessary to look at both sides of the argument before forming an opinion.
Animals have always been used by humans in many different ways, for example, as food, for work, and in research. Using animals for food reflects what happens throughout the animal kingdom where carnivorous, or meat-eating, animals kill other animals for food. Humans have achieved dominance over animals and are able to use them to work, for example in the fields or to pull carts and other transport. Animals undoubtedly suffer during medical research, but this research may prevent humans from suffering in the future.
Many people, however, argue that it is wrong to cause suffering to animals for the benefit of humans. Meat is not a necessary part of our diet, and there are many healthy vegetarians around the world who prove this. Technology has largely replaced the use of animals in the fields and for transport. Research carried out on animals is often not valid for human cases as an animal's reactions may be very different from those of a human. There are useful alternative forms of research available now, such as the use of tissue cell cultures. More and more people are unhappy to cause suffering to animals if there is an alternative.
In conclusion, I believe that animals should not be used for human gain. It is time to concentrate resources on developing alternative sources of food and methods of research, and allow animals a pain-free existence.
Animals have always been used by humans in many different ways, for example, as food, for work, and in research. Using animals for food reflects what happens throughout the animal kingdom where carnivorous, or meat-eating, animals kill other animals for food. Humans have achieved dominance over animals and are able to use them to work, for example in the fields or to pull carts and other transport. Animals undoubtedly suffer during medical research, but this research may prevent humans from suffering in the future.
Many people, however, argue that it is wrong to cause suffering to animals for the benefit of humans. Meat is not a necessary part of our diet, and there are many healthy vegetarians around the world who prove this. Technology has largely replaced the use of animals in the fields and for transport. Research carried out on animals is often not valid for human cases as an animal's reactions may be very different from those of a human. There are useful alternative forms of research available now, such as the use of tissue cell cultures. More and more people are unhappy to cause suffering to animals if there is an alternative.
In conclusion, I believe that animals should not be used for human gain. It is time to concentrate resources on developing alternative sources of food and methods of research, and allow animals a pain-free existence.
A new law you would like to introduce
• There are various laws imposed by the government from time to time.
• All these laws are for the benefit of society in general
• Without these laws we would be living in utter chaos
• If I get a chance to introduce a new law it would be ‘ one car per family law’
• You know madam/sir, the number of cars is increasing day by day and this is creating a lot of problems.
• There is a lot of traffic congestion on the roads
• There are also accidents because of cars
• Then there is a lot of pollution like air and noise pollution
• Nowadays we belong to a materialistic society
• People are not satisfied with few things
• They want more and more
• I think if there is one car in a family, it is enough for the needs of that family
• But nowadays, each member of the family wants his own personal car
• There is no parking space within the house for more than one car
• So people park their cars on the streets and roads
• This leads to traffic jams which wastes a lot of time
• So, I think, if government seriously thinks about it, it would benefit everyone.
• All these laws are for the benefit of society in general
• Without these laws we would be living in utter chaos
• If I get a chance to introduce a new law it would be ‘ one car per family law’
• You know madam/sir, the number of cars is increasing day by day and this is creating a lot of problems.
• There is a lot of traffic congestion on the roads
• There are also accidents because of cars
• Then there is a lot of pollution like air and noise pollution
• Nowadays we belong to a materialistic society
• People are not satisfied with few things
• They want more and more
• I think if there is one car in a family, it is enough for the needs of that family
• But nowadays, each member of the family wants his own personal car
• There is no parking space within the house for more than one car
• So people park their cars on the streets and roads
• This leads to traffic jams which wastes a lot of time
• So, I think, if government seriously thinks about it, it would benefit everyone.
Some people think that media should not report detail of crimes to the public. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, we are surrounded by a variety of media like the Internet, newspaper and TV, which are very informative, connecting us to the whole world. It is a highly debatable issue whether media should report smallest details of crime to the masses or not. I feel that the media should be very judicious in selecting what to report and how much to report. So, I agree with the statement. In this essay, I intend to support my views with my arguments.
As I see it, the news outlets should pay more attention to the affairs themselves, rather than the details of the crimes. To start with, the details of crimes make a misleading statement to the children and adolescents who are curious about the process of committing crimes, and are likely to copy the criminal actions blindly.
Moreover, the excessive violence and pornographic contents can also raise the adults' criminal tendencies. In the other words, detailed crime news can generate individuals' potential desire to commit a crime, thus induce many social problems.
Moreover, the detailed report of a crime does not show enough respects to the victims and their family. For example, if any murder or robbery has taken place in someone’s house then if it is shown in detail on TV, the whole privacy of those people is lost. Another very strong argument in favour of censorship of media is that sometimes this detailed description can help the criminals also. For instance, when terrorists attacked Hotel Taj in Mumbai, the media reported details of the commandos’ position on TV. This was also viewed by the terrorists hiding in the hotel. They changed their positions accordingly.
However, the opponents claim that we have a right to know every detail and so media should report every detail. I still feel that it would lead to more problems. I think the media has an obligation to show the right direction to the public. It should report news in a balanced manner rather than high-lighting the details of the crime.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that although it is the duty of the media to keep us informed, the details of crime should not be shown.
As I see it, the news outlets should pay more attention to the affairs themselves, rather than the details of the crimes. To start with, the details of crimes make a misleading statement to the children and adolescents who are curious about the process of committing crimes, and are likely to copy the criminal actions blindly.
Moreover, the excessive violence and pornographic contents can also raise the adults' criminal tendencies. In the other words, detailed crime news can generate individuals' potential desire to commit a crime, thus induce many social problems.
Moreover, the detailed report of a crime does not show enough respects to the victims and their family. For example, if any murder or robbery has taken place in someone’s house then if it is shown in detail on TV, the whole privacy of those people is lost. Another very strong argument in favour of censorship of media is that sometimes this detailed description can help the criminals also. For instance, when terrorists attacked Hotel Taj in Mumbai, the media reported details of the commandos’ position on TV. This was also viewed by the terrorists hiding in the hotel. They changed their positions accordingly.
However, the opponents claim that we have a right to know every detail and so media should report every detail. I still feel that it would lead to more problems. I think the media has an obligation to show the right direction to the public. It should report news in a balanced manner rather than high-lighting the details of the crime.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that although it is the duty of the media to keep us informed, the details of crime should not be shown.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Some people think the main benefit of international cooperation is in protection of the environment, while others think that the main benefit is in the world business. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Today we do not belong to a big planet Earth. We are part of a global village. This has lead to a greater need for international cooperation in many crucial issues such as poverty, starvation, environmental protection, terrorism and global warming. Some individuals are of the opinion that the main benefit of global cooperation has been in protection of the environment, but others hold the view that the main benefit is in international trade. In this essay I intend to delve into both views and finally give my opinion.
International cooperation does contribute a lot in environmental protection. First of all many governments have realised that it is a grave issue and have taken steps to aware the masses of the simple steps they can take to save the environment. Then, the Kyoto agreement was signed by many countries in the United Nations Charter that they would not set up any industry which would emit more than 5.2% carbon dioxide.
The role international cooperation in world business is self evident. Today, we can buy any foreign brand like Reebok and Nike in our country and our Indian brands like Videocon have touched the international market. This has brought the economy of developing countries quite close to the developed ones.
In my opinion, although a lot has been done in both areas, a lot more needs to be done in the field of environment. The steps already taken are not enough and the governments need to tackle this issue on a war-footing. The rate at which global warming is occurring will transform the whole Earth into a boiling pot one day and leave it un-inhabitable.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, international co-operation has benefited the world business much more than the environment.
International cooperation does contribute a lot in environmental protection. First of all many governments have realised that it is a grave issue and have taken steps to aware the masses of the simple steps they can take to save the environment. Then, the Kyoto agreement was signed by many countries in the United Nations Charter that they would not set up any industry which would emit more than 5.2% carbon dioxide.
The role international cooperation in world business is self evident. Today, we can buy any foreign brand like Reebok and Nike in our country and our Indian brands like Videocon have touched the international market. This has brought the economy of developing countries quite close to the developed ones.
In my opinion, although a lot has been done in both areas, a lot more needs to be done in the field of environment. The steps already taken are not enough and the governments need to tackle this issue on a war-footing. The rate at which global warming is occurring will transform the whole Earth into a boiling pot one day and leave it un-inhabitable.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, international co-operation has benefited the world business much more than the environment.
Some people think that in the modern society individuals are becoming more dependent on each other while others say that individuals are becoming more independent of each other. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Whether we are dependent or independent of each other is difficult to say. In some cases, we heavily rely on others but in others, we are quite self-sufficient. In this essay I intend to delve into both views and finally give my opinion.
There are times when we are dependent on others. When we are little, we are cared by our parents otherwise we would have no access to food, shelter, and clothing. At the same time, we are emotionally important to them, so they always remember they are responsible for raising us up. When we are grown up, we start to learn at schools, and then it is the teachers on whom we rely heavily. When we are employed, we need to work closely with our colleagues and our employers also depend on our productivity.
We are also independent of each other in many ways. We don’t need to go to the banks. We can do net-banking sitting at home. We can do online shopping. We don’t need to go and depend on salesmen. We can entertain ourselves alone by computer games and internet. We can even study at home through online education and distant education. We are not dependent on teachers for imparting education. We can book railway and air tickets online and are not dependent on booking clerks. We can eat ready to eat food available in the market. We are not dependent on somebody in our home to cook for us.
Whatever arguments we put forth in support of both views, the fact cannot be denied that man is a social animal and will always be dependent on others. This dependence may be direct or indirect. When we are seemingly independent, we are still dependent on people behind the technology. For example, when we do net banking we depend on all those software developers who have made it possible for us. When we eat ready to eat food we depend on those who cook and pack that food.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that we are all part of a society and it is not possible for us not to depend on others. This dependence, however, may be visible or invisible.
There are times when we are dependent on others. When we are little, we are cared by our parents otherwise we would have no access to food, shelter, and clothing. At the same time, we are emotionally important to them, so they always remember they are responsible for raising us up. When we are grown up, we start to learn at schools, and then it is the teachers on whom we rely heavily. When we are employed, we need to work closely with our colleagues and our employers also depend on our productivity.
We are also independent of each other in many ways. We don’t need to go to the banks. We can do net-banking sitting at home. We can do online shopping. We don’t need to go and depend on salesmen. We can entertain ourselves alone by computer games and internet. We can even study at home through online education and distant education. We are not dependent on teachers for imparting education. We can book railway and air tickets online and are not dependent on booking clerks. We can eat ready to eat food available in the market. We are not dependent on somebody in our home to cook for us.
Whatever arguments we put forth in support of both views, the fact cannot be denied that man is a social animal and will always be dependent on others. This dependence may be direct or indirect. When we are seemingly independent, we are still dependent on people behind the technology. For example, when we do net banking we depend on all those software developers who have made it possible for us. When we eat ready to eat food we depend on those who cook and pack that food.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that we are all part of a society and it is not possible for us not to depend on others. This dependence, however, may be visible or invisible.
Some people think the cheap air flight gives ordinary people more freedom. However, others think the cheap air flight should be banned because it pollutes the air and brings many other problems. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
In today's world, we are now in a position to enjoy cheaper air flights than in the past. However, there is an argument that they should be banned due to the levels of pollution they generate. Those in favour of cheap air flight say it is advantageous in terms of freedom and the opportunities to learn from other countries. In this essay I shall examine both sides of this issue and finally give my opinion.
Cheap air flight can be beneficial in many ways. One of them is the opportunities to go overseas. Earlier, only the affluent could afford it, but now it is within the pocket of the ordinary man. Some of the discounted tickets are fairly cheap and flying abroad is no longer a dream for many. Moreover, small businesses have prospered because of the ease of travel because of these flights.
In addition to this, cheap air flight enables intercultural exchanges between countries. The advent of cheap air fare makes it possible for people the world over to travel regularly, regardless of the purpose of the trip. Therefore, people have the opportunities to learn from different cultures and have a better understanding of countries they used to be unfamiliar with. This, in turn, enhances cultural communications between countries.
The argument that cheap flight should be banned is also justified to some extent. It is generally known that aeroplanes consume a vast amount of oil and the gas emission generated by an airplane is enormous. If cheap air tickets are not controlled, the environmental impacts would only get worse in the long run. Besides, cheap air tickets at times are extremely disturbing in terms of certain conditions that go along with them. One problem is that the date and time cannot be changed once purchased. As a result, many people find it inconvenient if they are to reschedule due to emergency.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, the issue of cheap air fares is complex and there is no easy solution as both sides have merits. However, I am convinced that giving people the freedom to travel is essential, but at the same time people should be made aware of avoiding un-necessary travel. Banning such flights is not the answer.
Cheap air flight can be beneficial in many ways. One of them is the opportunities to go overseas. Earlier, only the affluent could afford it, but now it is within the pocket of the ordinary man. Some of the discounted tickets are fairly cheap and flying abroad is no longer a dream for many. Moreover, small businesses have prospered because of the ease of travel because of these flights.
In addition to this, cheap air flight enables intercultural exchanges between countries. The advent of cheap air fare makes it possible for people the world over to travel regularly, regardless of the purpose of the trip. Therefore, people have the opportunities to learn from different cultures and have a better understanding of countries they used to be unfamiliar with. This, in turn, enhances cultural communications between countries.
The argument that cheap flight should be banned is also justified to some extent. It is generally known that aeroplanes consume a vast amount of oil and the gas emission generated by an airplane is enormous. If cheap air tickets are not controlled, the environmental impacts would only get worse in the long run. Besides, cheap air tickets at times are extremely disturbing in terms of certain conditions that go along with them. One problem is that the date and time cannot be changed once purchased. As a result, many people find it inconvenient if they are to reschedule due to emergency.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, the issue of cheap air fares is complex and there is no easy solution as both sides have merits. However, I am convinced that giving people the freedom to travel is essential, but at the same time people should be made aware of avoiding un-necessary travel. Banning such flights is not the answer.
Schools offer a wide range of courses such as physical education, music, economics, philosophy, math, English，geography, physics and history. Among all these subjects, which one do you think is the most important and which one is the least important?
To decide which course is the most important and which is the least important is a daunting task. Each and every subject has its own importance which cannot be under estimated but if I have to choose one I would chose physical education as the most important one and philosophy as the least important one.
Physical education is the most important for all students at school level. These classes improve students' health, now and in the future. They burn calories, and this helps them to maintain a healthy weight. The classes' regular exercise develops good habits for the present and the future. People who exercise as children are more likely to continue exercising when they're adults. This reduces the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and other serious illnesses.
Physical education also improves students' mental health. It can be difficult to sit in class all day. Students can exercise and then relax after their physical activity. This helps them to feel happier and more comfortable at school. The classes also include activities that help with stress reduction. Walking, stretching, and yoga are just a few of the exercises that reduce stress. When they have good mental health, they can do well in other subjects also.
The students' favourite part of physical education classes may be the opportunity to communicate with their classmates. They enjoy talking to their friends while they play games. The students also learn how to work in teams. Teamwork is an important skill that they will use when playing sports or even at their jobs in the future.
As for the least important course, I have to say that I think philosophy is not so important after all. This is a subject which can be there at the higher level for those who want to study it. That is why, perhaps, in our Indian school curricula philosophy has no place.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, although all subjects are important, I believe that physical education is most important and philosophy is least important.
Physical education is the most important for all students at school level. These classes improve students' health, now and in the future. They burn calories, and this helps them to maintain a healthy weight. The classes' regular exercise develops good habits for the present and the future. People who exercise as children are more likely to continue exercising when they're adults. This reduces the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and other serious illnesses.
Physical education also improves students' mental health. It can be difficult to sit in class all day. Students can exercise and then relax after their physical activity. This helps them to feel happier and more comfortable at school. The classes also include activities that help with stress reduction. Walking, stretching, and yoga are just a few of the exercises that reduce stress. When they have good mental health, they can do well in other subjects also.
The students' favourite part of physical education classes may be the opportunity to communicate with their classmates. They enjoy talking to their friends while they play games. The students also learn how to work in teams. Teamwork is an important skill that they will use when playing sports or even at their jobs in the future.
As for the least important course, I have to say that I think philosophy is not so important after all. This is a subject which can be there at the higher level for those who want to study it. That is why, perhaps, in our Indian school curricula philosophy has no place.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, although all subjects are important, I believe that physical education is most important and philosophy is least important.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Sea shore
• India has a long coastal line.
• In fact, it is around 7000 km
• I have heard about a lot of beaches like Juhu beach in Mumbai and Merina beach in Chennai
• But here I would like to talk about a beach in Goa which I visited with my family last year in the month of December
• We went by train to Goa and stayed in a hotel at Panaji
• I vividly remember the name of the hotel
• It was hotel Delmon
• It was a ten day holiday including the travel period
• My father had meticulously planned the holiday within his budget
• Every morning there was a bus from the hotel which left at sharp 9 a m
• It took us to various beaches and churches of Goa
• The beaches I remember are Anjana, Donna Paula and Calangute
• I liked Anjana beach the most
• I remember the foreign tourists sun bathing under the swaying palm leaves
• We too enjoyed the waves touching our feet
• I collected some shells and even caught a small starfish.
• The day we went there was a flea-market where we saw cute looking Kashmiri and Tibetan women selling all kinds of junk jewellery and clothes
• I too bought a T-shirt from there
• After this we went to the Calangute beach
• There was too much rush on the beach
• I remember my father took us quite far into the water
• I was very afraid but my father held my hand
• My mother was quite happy clicking photographs from the shore
• In fact, it is around 7000 km
• I have heard about a lot of beaches like Juhu beach in Mumbai and Merina beach in Chennai
• But here I would like to talk about a beach in Goa which I visited with my family last year in the month of December
• We went by train to Goa and stayed in a hotel at Panaji
• I vividly remember the name of the hotel
• It was hotel Delmon
• It was a ten day holiday including the travel period
• My father had meticulously planned the holiday within his budget
• Every morning there was a bus from the hotel which left at sharp 9 a m
• It took us to various beaches and churches of Goa
• The beaches I remember are Anjana, Donna Paula and Calangute
• I liked Anjana beach the most
• I remember the foreign tourists sun bathing under the swaying palm leaves
• We too enjoyed the waves touching our feet
• I collected some shells and even caught a small starfish.
• The day we went there was a flea-market where we saw cute looking Kashmiri and Tibetan women selling all kinds of junk jewellery and clothes
• I too bought a T-shirt from there
• After this we went to the Calangute beach
• There was too much rush on the beach
• I remember my father took us quite far into the water
• I was very afraid but my father held my hand
• My mother was quite happy clicking photographs from the shore
Talk about a public event you attended, you should say: - What was the public event and when was it? - With whom did you go to the event? - Why was this public event so important?
• There are many public events held in my country like Independence Day celebration, Republic Day and so on but here I would like to talk about a public event which is held in my home town every year in the month of December.
• This is the Environment fair.
• This is organised by the Environment Protection Association of my home town
• The other NGOs like Rotary club and Jaycees also actively participate in it.
• Last year it was held on 12th- 14th December.
• I went there on both days.
• First day I went with my friends.
• Many competitions were held there like painting competition, body building competition, kite flying competition, debate competition.
• We took part in painting competition.
• The theme was pollution.
• My friend bagged the second prize.
• There were many stalls selling items at discounted rates.
• So I came home and told my mother about it.
• The next day I went with my parents.
• On that day there was a flower show.
• Many stalls were selling saplings and organic fertilisers.
• We bought a lot of plants.
• There was also a display of energy saving gadgets which use solar energy.
• We bought a solar cooker from there.
• My mother uses it regularly now for preparing many dishes.
• This event was important because it created awareness about the environment
• You know, madam, global warming is a burning problem these days and unless we all do something about it our Earth will become a boiling pot very soon.
• This is the Environment fair.
• This is organised by the Environment Protection Association of my home town
• The other NGOs like Rotary club and Jaycees also actively participate in it.
• Last year it was held on 12th- 14th December.
• I went there on both days.
• First day I went with my friends.
• Many competitions were held there like painting competition, body building competition, kite flying competition, debate competition.
• We took part in painting competition.
• The theme was pollution.
• My friend bagged the second prize.
• There were many stalls selling items at discounted rates.
• So I came home and told my mother about it.
• The next day I went with my parents.
• On that day there was a flower show.
• Many stalls were selling saplings and organic fertilisers.
• We bought a lot of plants.
• There was also a display of energy saving gadgets which use solar energy.
• We bought a solar cooker from there.
• My mother uses it regularly now for preparing many dishes.
• This event was important because it created awareness about the environment
• You know, madam, global warming is a burning problem these days and unless we all do something about it our Earth will become a boiling pot very soon.
Some people think children’s spending time on TV, video and PC games is good, while others think it is bad. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
While it may be disliked by many, the modern game industry is a part of our world. From its humble beginnings in the 80s, the video game industry has exploded into a 10-billion dollar empire. It is a debatable issue whether these games are good or bad. In this essay, I intend to delve into the pros and cons of these games and finally give my opinion.
There are many advantages of video, PC and TV games. To begin with, video game playing introduces children to computer technology. Secondly, some games provide practice in problem solving and logic e.g. Age Of Empires. Video games have proved to improve visual skills. They also improve motor and spatial skills. Children who play video games have better reflexes.
What is more, these modern games make learning fun. The cost of failure is lower. This encourages risk taking and exploration. If the kid gets the answer wrong or their character dies, they just start the game over and try again. Finally, some games have therapeutic applications. Watching TV also is very educative for children.
On the other hand, there are some disadvantages of these technological inventions. Firstly, overdependence on these games leads to social isolation as these are usually played alone. Secondly, some games have violent characters and seeing their violent acts leads to aggressive behaviour in children. Moreover, these games can confuse reality and fantasy. For example, when children play car racing games then they may race their own vehicles in real life which can lead to accidents. Finally, many games do not require action that requires independence and creativity.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that on the whole these games are very good and certainly their advantages outweigh their disadvantages but these should be played in moderation. Parents should limit the game playing time and see to it that home work and chores are done before playing
There are many advantages of video, PC and TV games. To begin with, video game playing introduces children to computer technology. Secondly, some games provide practice in problem solving and logic e.g. Age Of Empires. Video games have proved to improve visual skills. They also improve motor and spatial skills. Children who play video games have better reflexes.
What is more, these modern games make learning fun. The cost of failure is lower. This encourages risk taking and exploration. If the kid gets the answer wrong or their character dies, they just start the game over and try again. Finally, some games have therapeutic applications. Watching TV also is very educative for children.
On the other hand, there are some disadvantages of these technological inventions. Firstly, overdependence on these games leads to social isolation as these are usually played alone. Secondly, some games have violent characters and seeing their violent acts leads to aggressive behaviour in children. Moreover, these games can confuse reality and fantasy. For example, when children play car racing games then they may race their own vehicles in real life which can lead to accidents. Finally, many games do not require action that requires independence and creativity.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that on the whole these games are very good and certainly their advantages outweigh their disadvantages but these should be played in moderation. Parents should limit the game playing time and see to it that home work and chores are done before playing
Some people think students should learn more practical courses like computer, but others think they should learn more about theoretical courses like geography and mathematics. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
The debate on whether theoretical subjects are more important or practical are more important has been raging for ages. Some individuals are of the opinion that pupils should be taught more practical courses like computers but others hold the view that theoretical subjects are more important. In this essay I intend to discuss both views and finally give my opinion.
Those in favour of theoretical courses say that to be practically successful we need to have a strong and solid theoretical foundation. Though practicality counts but it is like half knowledge if no theoretical knowledge is gained. Moreover, theory provides powerful tools to deal with the world around us and the body within ourselves. For example, medical theories help us combat diseases, economic theories explain inflation and unemployment, gravity theory explains the presence of planets. Even marketing which was once thought to be purely practical is based on statistical data which require maths knowledge.
Those who advocate practical courses say so because today is the era of computers and technology. They feel that such subjects have more job opportunities. What they don’t take into consideration is that as far as the basic knowledge of such subjects is there it is all practical, but if you have to go into computer programming, you need to have your mathematical concepts clear.
In my opinion, both practical and theoretical subjects go hand in hand and each has their own significance. Theory and practical are interrelated. Theory is the basis of all practical knowledge. For example a person becomes a doctor in five and a half years, which has four and a half theory plus one year practical. So, for the overall development of the students a mix of all subjects should be there.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, both theory and practical subjects have their own importance. Both should be incorporated in the school curricula.
Those in favour of theoretical courses say that to be practically successful we need to have a strong and solid theoretical foundation. Though practicality counts but it is like half knowledge if no theoretical knowledge is gained. Moreover, theory provides powerful tools to deal with the world around us and the body within ourselves. For example, medical theories help us combat diseases, economic theories explain inflation and unemployment, gravity theory explains the presence of planets. Even marketing which was once thought to be purely practical is based on statistical data which require maths knowledge.
Those who advocate practical courses say so because today is the era of computers and technology. They feel that such subjects have more job opportunities. What they don’t take into consideration is that as far as the basic knowledge of such subjects is there it is all practical, but if you have to go into computer programming, you need to have your mathematical concepts clear.
In my opinion, both practical and theoretical subjects go hand in hand and each has their own significance. Theory and practical are interrelated. Theory is the basis of all practical knowledge. For example a person becomes a doctor in five and a half years, which has four and a half theory plus one year practical. So, for the overall development of the students a mix of all subjects should be there.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, both theory and practical subjects have their own importance. Both should be incorporated in the school curricula.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Some people think imported food exerts positive impacts on our lives. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, supermarkets are stocked with food products from around the world. Some individuals are of the opinion that this imported food has beneficial effect on us. I beg to differ. I feel that the local and regional produce is better for us and will discuss why in this essay.
It is certainly the case that importing food can have a negative effect on local culture. This can be seen in countries such as Japan where imported food has become more popular than traditional, local produce, eroding people’s understanding of their own food traditions. Although some would claim that this is a natural part of economic development, in an increasingly global world. I feel strongly that any loss of regional culture would be detrimental.
A second major reason to reduce imports is the environmental cost. Currently, many food imports such as fruit, are transported thousands of miles by road, sea and air, making the produce more expensive to buy and increasing pollution from exhaust fumes. Despite the fact that trade in food exports has existed for many years, I am convinced that a reduction would bring significant financial and environmental gains.
However, many jobs depend on food exports and some less developed countries may even depend on this trade for economic survival. In spite of this, the importance of developing local trade should not be undervalued.
In conclusion, I am certain that reducing food imports would have cultural and environmental benefits. What is more, the local economy should, in time, prosper commercially as the demand for local and regional produce remains high resisting the competition from overseas.
It is certainly the case that importing food can have a negative effect on local culture. This can be seen in countries such as Japan where imported food has become more popular than traditional, local produce, eroding people’s understanding of their own food traditions. Although some would claim that this is a natural part of economic development, in an increasingly global world. I feel strongly that any loss of regional culture would be detrimental.
A second major reason to reduce imports is the environmental cost. Currently, many food imports such as fruit, are transported thousands of miles by road, sea and air, making the produce more expensive to buy and increasing pollution from exhaust fumes. Despite the fact that trade in food exports has existed for many years, I am convinced that a reduction would bring significant financial and environmental gains.
However, many jobs depend on food exports and some less developed countries may even depend on this trade for economic survival. In spite of this, the importance of developing local trade should not be undervalued.
In conclusion, I am certain that reducing food imports would have cultural and environmental benefits. What is more, the local economy should, in time, prosper commercially as the demand for local and regional produce remains high resisting the competition from overseas.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Society is based on rules and laws. If individuals were free to do whatever they want to do, it could not function. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Governments have the responsibility of ensuring the safety of their citizens by imposing certain rules and laws. Although it may restrict their freedom to a certain extent, there would be utter chaos in society in the absence of these laws.
Rules and regulations cause minor inconveniences to people but they also ensure the safety of individuals and society. It is a reality that hundreds of accidents are caused due to drunken driving. Since there are many rules against driving under the influence of alcohol, many accidents that could cause great damage to human life and property, are avoided. Those who believe that such rules interfere with their freedom pay with their own lives and that of others. The conclusion one can draw from these experiences is that people should tolerate certain inconveniences, in order to protect their lives from possible dangers.
Littering and spitting in public places is considered a serious offence in Singapore, which is dealt with serious fines. People in countries like India, that do not have such strict rules on public hygiene may not realise the value of such a regulation but this has made Singapore one of the most beautiful and cleanest countries in the world. When people learn the benefits of certain restrictions, they would begin to appreciate such constrains on their freedom.
However, in certain case, we may find that some rules are unnecessary and ineffective. These are only rare instances and citizens have the right to raise objections against them. Any sensible government would revoke such rules and regulations if it finds them unproductive.
In general, the rules that we have are not too many but essential for the smooth functioning of any civil society. The absence of such controls would lead to chaos and confusion in public life.
Rules and regulations cause minor inconveniences to people but they also ensure the safety of individuals and society. It is a reality that hundreds of accidents are caused due to drunken driving. Since there are many rules against driving under the influence of alcohol, many accidents that could cause great damage to human life and property, are avoided. Those who believe that such rules interfere with their freedom pay with their own lives and that of others. The conclusion one can draw from these experiences is that people should tolerate certain inconveniences, in order to protect their lives from possible dangers.
Littering and spitting in public places is considered a serious offence in Singapore, which is dealt with serious fines. People in countries like India, that do not have such strict rules on public hygiene may not realise the value of such a regulation but this has made Singapore one of the most beautiful and cleanest countries in the world. When people learn the benefits of certain restrictions, they would begin to appreciate such constrains on their freedom.
However, in certain case, we may find that some rules are unnecessary and ineffective. These are only rare instances and citizens have the right to raise objections against them. Any sensible government would revoke such rules and regulations if it finds them unproductive.
In general, the rules that we have are not too many but essential for the smooth functioning of any civil society. The absence of such controls would lead to chaos and confusion in public life.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Old generations often hold some traditional ideas on the correct way of life, thinking and behavior. However, some people think that it is not helpful for the young generations to prepare for modern life in the future. What’s your opinion?
Generation gap has been a debated issue since the dawn of civilization. I partially agree with this statement. Modern life has changed beyond recognition in many ways and so many ideas of the old generation are not suitable for today’s life, but still there are some traditional ideas which are evergreen and hold true even today.
The elderly had a very disciplined life. For instance, they believed in sticking to one job for life. They also believed in fixed-hours job. They had a stress-free work life. Moreover, they believed that marriage was for life. Divorces were rare. They had a stable family life. These values, if followed, are good for today’s generation also.
However, in many ways the ideas of the elderly are obsolete in the times of modernity. The elderly live like a frog in the well. They forget that change is progress. They also want their children to follow the same profession. They do not give importance to aptitude. Youngsters are more intellectually evolved. They want to explore the un-trodden path to face the cut-throat competition of today.
Furthermore, the young differ in dress, food and habits. These things were not available to the elderly. The elderly had less opportunities to come in contact with the western world. The earth was a big planet. Now it is a global village. The young speak a universal language, eat Italian pizza and Chinese food and wear a universal dress. The leisurely ways of the old are gone. The young have the speed of bikes, cars and planes. What can link them to the old bullock cart? The young today have to change to survive.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, there are some traditional ideas of the elderly that are evergreen and will hold true for times to come. But, in many ways, they are obsolete in today’s time.
The elderly had a very disciplined life. For instance, they believed in sticking to one job for life. They also believed in fixed-hours job. They had a stress-free work life. Moreover, they believed that marriage was for life. Divorces were rare. They had a stable family life. These values, if followed, are good for today’s generation also.
However, in many ways the ideas of the elderly are obsolete in the times of modernity. The elderly live like a frog in the well. They forget that change is progress. They also want their children to follow the same profession. They do not give importance to aptitude. Youngsters are more intellectually evolved. They want to explore the un-trodden path to face the cut-throat competition of today.
Furthermore, the young differ in dress, food and habits. These things were not available to the elderly. The elderly had less opportunities to come in contact with the western world. The earth was a big planet. Now it is a global village. The young speak a universal language, eat Italian pizza and Chinese food and wear a universal dress. The leisurely ways of the old are gone. The young have the speed of bikes, cars and planes. What can link them to the old bullock cart? The young today have to change to survive.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, there are some traditional ideas of the elderly that are evergreen and will hold true for times to come. But, in many ways, they are obsolete in today’s time.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Unemployment is getting increasingly serious in many countries. Some people think students only need to get primary education, while others think secondary education is necessary. What’s your opinion?
Nowadays, an increasing number of people cannot find jobs in many countries. Some people argue that students only need to receive primary education, while others believe secondary education is necessary. Before presenting my opinion, it is necessary for me to probe into both sides of the issue.
Those who say that only primary education should be there, feel that education has little influence on finding a job. To begin with, the competition for jobs is increasingly tough since there are more and more job seekers. Definitely, no matter what level education a person receives, he or she has to go to find a job finally, facing some competition. Therefore, the earlier one goes to find a position, the better for a person. Furthermore, they think people can acquire the technique through work instead of school. In other words, school education does not provide practical technique for factories. It is unnecessary for people to receive more education than primary courses.
On the other hand, those who believe that secondary education is necessary think that secondary education will offer more knowledge for people who plan to work, which can get them better paid jobs. However, both the two issues neglect the great impacts of education on the development of individuals.
In my opinion, it is necessary for individuals to receive as much education as possible before they go to work. Firstly, college or university education plays a key role in the development of individuals. Secondly, education will definitely enhance the competition for work. The more education one receives, the more opportunities for jobs he will have. For instance, more companies are recruiting new employees with a bachelor or master degree recently since the employment is very hard-to-get, with today’s financial crisis. Last but not least, receiving more education will widen one's horizons. Some of them, maybe, set up their own business, creating a new approach to unemployment.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, although primary education is sufficient for some kinds of work, I firmly believe that people should receive higher education before they go to work.
Those who say that only primary education should be there, feel that education has little influence on finding a job. To begin with, the competition for jobs is increasingly tough since there are more and more job seekers. Definitely, no matter what level education a person receives, he or she has to go to find a job finally, facing some competition. Therefore, the earlier one goes to find a position, the better for a person. Furthermore, they think people can acquire the technique through work instead of school. In other words, school education does not provide practical technique for factories. It is unnecessary for people to receive more education than primary courses.
On the other hand, those who believe that secondary education is necessary think that secondary education will offer more knowledge for people who plan to work, which can get them better paid jobs. However, both the two issues neglect the great impacts of education on the development of individuals.
In my opinion, it is necessary for individuals to receive as much education as possible before they go to work. Firstly, college or university education plays a key role in the development of individuals. Secondly, education will definitely enhance the competition for work. The more education one receives, the more opportunities for jobs he will have. For instance, more companies are recruiting new employees with a bachelor or master degree recently since the employment is very hard-to-get, with today’s financial crisis. Last but not least, receiving more education will widen one's horizons. Some of them, maybe, set up their own business, creating a new approach to unemployment.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, although primary education is sufficient for some kinds of work, I firmly believe that people should receive higher education before they go to work.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Some teachers say students should be organised into groups to study. Others argue students should be made to study alone. Tell the benefits of each study method. Which one do you think is more effective?
Some educationists hold the view that studying in groups is better for students while others believe that studying alone is better. This essay shall delve into the benefits of each study methods.
There are many benefits of studying in groups. To begin with, when you work with other students you are able to share your ideas and experiences, and have more time to do this. For example, if every student spends just two minutes talking individually to the teacher, the class time is soon finished. However, if students work in groups they can spend much more time talking to the teacher than just two minutes.
Secondly, when we study in groups this helps students practice negotiation skills like making a contribution, agreeing or disagreeing with someone and asking a person to give examples of their point. Finally, we can put forward working in groups as an example of what happens in real life, in work situations and say that studying in groups in class prepares us for this.
On the other hand, when students study alone then they have no distractions and they can concentrate better on study. This is especially helpful in subjects like mathematics and physics. Studying alone also increases the confidence and ability to solve problems on one’s own. Students become more competitive which is a necessary virtue in the competitive era of today.
I feel that teachers should mix and match both these methods depending on the subject and the situation. For boring subjects like history and philosophy students should be organised into groups but for subjects that need concentration, individual study should be encouraged. Both methods have own importance and should complement each other rather than being treated as rivals.
There are many benefits of studying in groups. To begin with, when you work with other students you are able to share your ideas and experiences, and have more time to do this. For example, if every student spends just two minutes talking individually to the teacher, the class time is soon finished. However, if students work in groups they can spend much more time talking to the teacher than just two minutes.
Secondly, when we study in groups this helps students practice negotiation skills like making a contribution, agreeing or disagreeing with someone and asking a person to give examples of their point. Finally, we can put forward working in groups as an example of what happens in real life, in work situations and say that studying in groups in class prepares us for this.
On the other hand, when students study alone then they have no distractions and they can concentrate better on study. This is especially helpful in subjects like mathematics and physics. Studying alone also increases the confidence and ability to solve problems on one’s own. Students become more competitive which is a necessary virtue in the competitive era of today.
I feel that teachers should mix and match both these methods depending on the subject and the situation. For boring subjects like history and philosophy students should be organised into groups but for subjects that need concentration, individual study should be encouraged. Both methods have own importance and should complement each other rather than being treated as rivals.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) are the main sources in many countries, but in some countries the use of alternative sources of energy (wind energy and solar energy) are encouraged. To what extent do you think it is a positive or negative development?
It is irrefutable that fossil fuels are our main source of energy in many parts of the world, but some nations are taking a step forward and using renewable sources like wind, solar and tidal energy. Definitely, it is a positive development. In the following paragraphs I intend to support my view with my arguments.
The main advantage of using alternate sources is that these conventional sources like coal and oil are non-renewable. They take millions of years to make and we are finishing them at an alarming rate. This means that if we finish the existing resources they will be gone forever as far as our and the coming many generations are concerned. Energy from the wind, the sun and the sea is an everlasting source of power. So, more and more governments should come forward in promoting these sources.
Another big advantage of these non-conventional sources is that they do not pollute the environment. We all know that global warming and damage to the protective ozone layer are caused by carbon-dioxide and other by-products of fossil fuels. If urgent steps are not taken towards the use of natural sources like sun and wind, then the time is not far when the whole earth will transform into a boiling pot.
Although the use of these alternative sources has some hurdles such as the initial cost of setting up solar panels and wind farms is very high and these are also dependent on the geographical locations. However, once the initial cost has been met with, their maintenance is practically negligible.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that the use of these alternative sources is a very positive development. It should be the global priority to invest in such research and development.
The main advantage of using alternate sources is that these conventional sources like coal and oil are non-renewable. They take millions of years to make and we are finishing them at an alarming rate. This means that if we finish the existing resources they will be gone forever as far as our and the coming many generations are concerned. Energy from the wind, the sun and the sea is an everlasting source of power. So, more and more governments should come forward in promoting these sources.
Another big advantage of these non-conventional sources is that they do not pollute the environment. We all know that global warming and damage to the protective ozone layer are caused by carbon-dioxide and other by-products of fossil fuels. If urgent steps are not taken towards the use of natural sources like sun and wind, then the time is not far when the whole earth will transform into a boiling pot.
Although the use of these alternative sources has some hurdles such as the initial cost of setting up solar panels and wind farms is very high and these are also dependent on the geographical locations. However, once the initial cost has been met with, their maintenance is practically negligible.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that the use of these alternative sources is a very positive development. It should be the global priority to invest in such research and development.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Talk about a useful thing in your house you use a lot - What is it - What you use it for - How it benefits you - Explain how else it can be used
Today, we live in an era of technology.
There are many things in my house which I use a lot
Here I would like to discuss about the microwave oven
This is something I use almost daily
It is a Samsung Combi 301 model
It is of black colour and has a capacity of 23 litres
It has a rotating plate inside
I generally use it for reheating.
Whenever I buy any burger or pizza from the market, I reheat it for a minute and it becomes hot and fresh.
Sometimes I come home late and then I reheat the food that my mother has prepared.
So this equipment is very helpful for me.
Sometimes my mother prepares some dishes and if they are left over, then we freeze them in the refrigerator and after few days we thaw them in the microwave and use them.
This microwave can also be used for cooking.
My sister bakes cakes in the microwave.
They come out very nice.
There are many things in my house which I use a lot
Here I would like to discuss about the microwave oven
This is something I use almost daily
It is a Samsung Combi 301 model
It is of black colour and has a capacity of 23 litres
It has a rotating plate inside
I generally use it for reheating.
Whenever I buy any burger or pizza from the market, I reheat it for a minute and it becomes hot and fresh.
Sometimes I come home late and then I reheat the food that my mother has prepared.
So this equipment is very helpful for me.
Sometimes my mother prepares some dishes and if they are left over, then we freeze them in the refrigerator and after few days we thaw them in the microwave and use them.
This microwave can also be used for cooking.
My sister bakes cakes in the microwave.
They come out very nice.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Talk about a good quality you admire in your friend - When he/she did it - What you learnt from it - What difficulties your friend found in doing it
• I have many friends but Ravi is my best friend.
• He is 20 years old
• He is tall and handsome
• He has curly hair and a smiling face.
• He belongs to a very rich family but he is very down-to-earth.
• He has many good qualities but the quality I admire the most is his ever-helping nature.
• He is very dependable.
• You can rely on him all the time.
• I remember once we were going to school.
• On the way there had been a road accident.
• Nobody was helping the victims.
• One person was badly injured.
• My friend immediately called an ambulance and we picked up the person and took him to civil Hospital.
• I was afraid of the formalities that we would have to go through.
• But my friend was determined to help. He did not think twice before doing that kind act.
• We had to answer a lot of grilling questions from the police and hospital authorities.
• We even had to miss school that day.
• Later on when the relatives of that person arrived, we heaved a sigh of relief.
• They were very grateful and thanked us.
• This made us very happy and I felt very proud of myself that I was part of this deed.
• I learnt that helping someone gives more happiness than anything else in the world.
• I learnt a lot from his selfless nature.
• He is 20 years old
• He is tall and handsome
• He has curly hair and a smiling face.
• He belongs to a very rich family but he is very down-to-earth.
• He has many good qualities but the quality I admire the most is his ever-helping nature.
• He is very dependable.
• You can rely on him all the time.
• I remember once we were going to school.
• On the way there had been a road accident.
• Nobody was helping the victims.
• One person was badly injured.
• My friend immediately called an ambulance and we picked up the person and took him to civil Hospital.
• I was afraid of the formalities that we would have to go through.
• But my friend was determined to help. He did not think twice before doing that kind act.
• We had to answer a lot of grilling questions from the police and hospital authorities.
• We even had to miss school that day.
• Later on when the relatives of that person arrived, we heaved a sigh of relief.
• They were very grateful and thanked us.
• This made us very happy and I felt very proud of myself that I was part of this deed.
• I learnt that helping someone gives more happiness than anything else in the world.
• I learnt a lot from his selfless nature.
Talk about the way you like to relax when you are not at work - Where did you go recently to relax - Who was with you - How did you relax
• I have many hobbies which relax me in my free time.
• I like to watch TV, listen to music and do some gardening in my free time. I enjoy these activities and they give me relaxation.
• When I listen to music, all my worries and tensions fly away
• Sometimes I watch sitcoms and reality shows on TV
• They are also entertaining and fun
• When I do gardening I feel very happy to see my plants grow
• I have a kitchen garden in the backyard of my house
• I have grown okra, aubergine, mint and radish.
• Spending time with friends also gives me relaxation.
• Last to last Sunday, my friend had come from Australia.
• We enjoyed a lot that weekend.
• We saw a movie at Sarab Multiplex.
• We saw Khatta Meetha
• It is a very hilarious movie
• We had popcorns and Pepsi in the interval.
• After the movie we went to Haveli
• We saw a cultural show at Rangla Punjab.
• We ate dinner after that.
• My friend belongs to Delhi
• He was impressed by the hospitality of Punjabi culture at Rangla Punjab
• We came home very late at night
• So, it was a very fun and relaxing day for me.
• I like to watch TV, listen to music and do some gardening in my free time. I enjoy these activities and they give me relaxation.
• When I listen to music, all my worries and tensions fly away
• Sometimes I watch sitcoms and reality shows on TV
• They are also entertaining and fun
• When I do gardening I feel very happy to see my plants grow
• I have a kitchen garden in the backyard of my house
• I have grown okra, aubergine, mint and radish.
• Spending time with friends also gives me relaxation.
• Last to last Sunday, my friend had come from Australia.
• We enjoyed a lot that weekend.
• We saw a movie at Sarab Multiplex.
• We saw Khatta Meetha
• It is a very hilarious movie
• We had popcorns and Pepsi in the interval.
• After the movie we went to Haveli
• We saw a cultural show at Rangla Punjab.
• We ate dinner after that.
• My friend belongs to Delhi
• He was impressed by the hospitality of Punjabi culture at Rangla Punjab
• We came home very late at night
• So, it was a very fun and relaxing day for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)