We can see more disasters and violence shown on TV .What are its causes and what effects will they exert on the individual and the society?

It is irrefutable that television news is filled with violence and suffering. Crime and violent world events are among the most frequently covered topics on TV. In the following paragraphs I shall discuss the reasons of this phenomenon and suggest some ways forward.

The most important reason for this is obviously that television channels want to increase their TRP (television rating point). If any channel has high TRP, it gets more adverts and hence more revenue. Therefore the channels have to show such sensational news. Secondly, the news channels have to show what is happening around and disasters and violence have become very common in our surroundings. Finally, people demand that they should be well informed about all things which are prevalent in society. So, media has to show all that to its viewers.

There are many harmful effects on the individuals and society. The most disturbing effect is on the children and youth. Media violence can stimulate fear in some children as it frightens them, making the effects long lasting. This can become traumatic in our children as they see it more and more. Children are starting to grow and are shaping their personality, values and beliefs. They can become aggressive or they can lose a sense of reality and fiction of what they are seeing.

Young people imitate what they see and it is logical that they see glamour in what they do when they commit violence. Consequently, the society suffers as the streets are full of violence. Too much portrayal of these also leads to immunity among the people and they are not affected by the disasters any more. Disasters like Tsunami and earthquakes don’t make people shed a tear any more.

How can we lessen violence? Reducing the amount of violence on TV and in the cinema would certainly be a good start. It is a well known fact that the media possesses a lot of power to influence people. So, those in the media must be judicious about delivering news in a balanced manner that brings the story to the consumer without showing too much violence. Journalism is a profession like any other and certain standards of quality and professionalism need to be maintained. Moreover, parents should be more vigilant about what children see on TV.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that there are many reasons why media shows too much violence on TV and some steps should be taken to reduce this as it has a lot of detrimental effects on the individuals and society.

Today’s children are living under more pressure from the society than children in the past. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Despite a continuing improvement in standard of living, many people believe that young people suffer more stress than older generations. I definitely agree with the statement and shall put forth my arguments to support my views in the following paragraphs.

Firstly, teenagers are exposed to more products than earlier generations as they are living in a modern consumerist society. Through films and the media they see celebrities with expensive jewellery, clothes and cars. Moreover, youth oriented advertising gives them an awareness of the latest technology such as digital music formats and mobile phones. As a result, teenagers feel pressure to acquire these items. Such stresses were not so strong during earlier times.

Secondly, pressures at school are stronger than before. Competition is very tough. Today’s children have to compete with children from all over the globe. Teenagers must succeed in their studies so that they can compete for the best jobs. Parental pressure, examinations and homework are all reported as causing increased levels of strain. Such stress was not that severe in earlier times.

Finally, today’s children are faced with a new type of stress. They are faced with a choice of two cultures. One culture, the global culture, is the one they want to adopt and the other is the traditional culture which they are forced to adopt by their parents. They are in a dilemma and this causes stress that has never been experienced by the earlier generations.

To sum up, consumerism and academic pressures are powerful causes of stress on today’s teenagers. To add to it there is the pressure of sticking to the traditional culture. So, definitely today’s children are under greater pressure than that faced by earlier generations.

In some countries, secondary schools aim to provide a general education across a range of subjects. In others, children focus on a narrow range of subjects related to a particular career. For today's world, which system is appropriate?

It is a highly debated issue whether students should study many subjects or only a few subjects. Both systems have their own merits. The answer depends on the students’ interests and the goals of their studies and the country’s requirement.

There are many advantages of a broad range of subjects. To begin with, a broad range of subjects would provide a well rounded education which is very important for the holistic development of the students. In addition, students could find out what their real interests are as they would be exposed to a variety of fields of study. Just after passing out of high school students really don’t know what they would be good at. So, if they have to make decisions at that time, they would be guided by their peers or parents. If they make a wrong decision at that time then they may drop out of school or end up with low grades.

Moreover, it is ideal for those students who have many interests. They will pursue education for education sake and not just learn a trade. Consequently, when they try to find out job after graduation, their versatility will allow them to apply for a wider range of jobs.

On the other hand, there are many advantages of studying a narrow range of subjects. Such courses are basically vocational in nature. Such students find it easy to find a job in their specific field of study. Naturally, companies will be more interested in job applicants who have superior knowledge and so can make better contributions. What is more, these students enter the job market earlier and start earning. This helps them to support their families. This also allows students to focus on their interest and the subject relevant to them. A physics or chemistry student may feel out of place if he has to study ancient poetry or western literature. Finally, such students have lesser burden and so more time for hobbies.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, both systems have their own merits. So it depends on students’ choice and needs of the country. One size fits all approach cannot be applied to today’s world.

The natural resources such as oil, forests and fresh water are being consumed at an alarming rate. What problems does it cause? How can we solve these problems?

The time has come for international soul-searching about the environment. The industrial revolution has changed forever the relation between humanity and nature. In this essay I intend to explore the problems caused by the increased consumption of oil, forests and fresh water, and suggest some solutions.

Talking about oil first; it is well known that it is non-renewable and so will finish very soon. Pollution is another problem that is caused by the use of oil. Oil is used in vehicles, industries and homes. Simple measures can be taken to lessen its use. At individual level we can use more public transport; we can make lifestyle changes and use fewer luxuries. At government level, people can be educated. More effort can be done to research alternate sources of energy.

Secondly, water, especially fresh water, is another big area of concern. There can be no life without water. Water is the most precious commodity today. Fresh water resources are depleting fast. At individual level we should use water conservatively and recycle water wherever possible. At government level desalination plants can be set. Strict laws can be enforced for industries against pollution of fresh water by effluents.

Finally, because of deforestation, many animals and plants, which provides us food, medicine and other valuable products, are facing extinction. We have less bio-diversity also. Moreover, when trees are cut, the soil is exposed to heavy rain and so is washed away. The soil also becomes infertile. Also, trees absorb carbon-dioxide, which causes global warming because of the increase of greenhouse gases. Afforestation should be promoted as a solution. If each one of us plants a tree and nurtures it for few months, then the day is not far when we shall have greenery all over.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that oil, forests and fresh water are very necessary if we have to survive. So we should use them judiciously else our future is bleak.

In many countries traditional foods are being replaced by international fast foods. This is having a negative effect on both families and societies. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In this era of technology and globalization, all spheres of life have changed dramatically and food is also no exception. I agree that international fast foods and restaurants have eaten up traditional foods and cuisines and this has had a detrimental effect on families and societies. A number of arguments surround my opinion.

There are a lot of detrimental effects on families. Firstly in this torrid pace of life, people are working till their death. They have no time to prepare and enjoy traditional home cooked food. Ultimately, they switch to an easy option of restaurants. McDonalds have become a ubiquitous term in every home. Secondly, there is the influence of occidental culture over the oriental one. People are forgetting their roots. For example, in earlier times all family members used to sit together and eat, and over the dining table they shared their happenings of the day. These fast foods are eaten alone mostly because they don’t appeal to the palate of the older members. As a result, family bonds and relationships are getting vague. Moreover, the art of home cooking is suffering a lot.

Admittedly, this trend has harmful effects on individuals. Undoubtedly, people are affected by health hazards like obesity and other diseases. Obesity is the root cause of many other diseases. Fast foods are rich in fats and salts which are not good for health. An obese person is more likely to suffer from diseases like hypertension and diabetes.

There are tangible consequences on society too. Broadly speaking, as people get inclined towards fast food and restaurants, local culture dies out. It is because traditional food is inextricably linked with culture. Undoubtedly, the identity of the society and nation will disappear. It will be monopolized by western societies. Also, if people are not healthy, the productivity of the nation will come to a standstill. Last but not least, fast foods promote use-and-throw culture which adds to the problem of garbage dumps, contamination, pollution and eventually many diseases.

To put into nutshell, I pen down saying that international fast foods have carved their niche and traditional food has taken the backseat. Certainly, this has adverse effects on individuals, families and societies.

Some people claim that public museums and art galleries will not be needed because people can see historical objects and works of art by using a computer. Do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

It is irrefutable that nowadays, because of technology, arm-chair tourism through which we can see historical objects and works of art on a computer, has gained popularity. However, I disagree, that public museums and art galleries will no longer be needed. In fact, I believe that their popularity will grow even further.

First of all, computers can never replace real public museums and art galleries. No matter how real and vivid computer images are, they are only images and can never be likened to the historical objects and works of art that we see in real or even might be allowed to touch with our fingertips. The difference can be compared to seeing the picture of a mango rather than actually eating it.

Secondly, visiting real museums and art galleries is a rewarding experience in many respects. For one thing, it is a good exercise. While we are making the trip to a museum or art gallery and then strolling about on site, we get some exercise which does a lot of good to our health. We generally go with family and friends and enjoy a lot. We also learn about the culture and tradition of the place. All this broadens our horizons which can never be done by the passive activity of seeing something on the computer screen.

Finally, I believe that after seeing these objects and museums, our craving to actually see these increases even more and so we make efforts to go and see these places. This can be proved by the overwhelming number of tourists to these places that has been increasing year after year. At certain times, especially when it is temporarily impossible for us to visit museums and art galleries in person, we can get a rough picture of what are on display on site. However, what we see from a computer screen is, after all, not exactly the same as what we see and feel with our own eyes on site.

In conclusion, arm-chair tourism is there today but museums and art galleries will still be needed

Air transport is increasingly used to export types of fruits and vegetables to countries where they cannot be grown or are out of season. Some people say it is a good thing, but other people think it can’t be justified. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

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 fruits and vegetables over a long distance by air. 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. Moreover, delivery by air is quick. Seasonal fruits and vegetables that are grown in far away countries can be delivered as soon as possible by keeping the quality and taste unchanged. Only air transport can cover so long a distance in such a short time to achieve this goal. The United States, Canada and Western Europe all import tropical agricultural products that grow in tropical climates by air.

Secondly, many people get employment in this field. Small farmers 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 foods 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 foods by air has both merits and demerits but the pros outweigh the cons.

Some people think that the government should provide assistance to all kinds of artists including painters, musicians and poets, etc. However, other people think that is a waste of money. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Many people's lives are richer because of art - music, paintings, calligraphy, pictures, sculpture, poems and dance. There are some who claim that it is important to support the artists, and others who are opposed to government funding. In the following paragraphs, I shall discuss both sides of the argument and finally give my opinion.

There are many reasons why government should fund artists. 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. Artists are the media of diffusing tradition. All kinds of tradition are the basis of a country without which the country can’t be civilised. So artists are the ambassadors of culture and play a vital role in elevating the level of civilization of the country. It is a major form of cultural abundance.

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. Art is what differentiates us from animals. Art is our soul and it is a source of courage. Artists also entertain us. Finally, government should fund artists because earning a livelihood from art is difficult especially in the budding stages.

Opponents of government funding on artists say that money spent on the arts could have been used for considerably more vital purposes. They have strong reasons as a nation's health and wellbeing should be paramount. The idea that elderly people are forced to wait for essential operations whilst the money required to increase available medical provision is spent on opera and ballet is plainly immoral. There are also more deserving social causes for the money that should be considered before the arts. Homelessness, unemployment, illiteracy - all of these deserve to be addressed before money is spent on what is essentially little more than entertainment.

To summarise, I would like to say that as both sides have strong arguments, it depends on the condition of the country. In developed countries where even the poorest of the poor have all the basic amenities of life, government should spend on art and artists but in countries where people are dying of starvation and diseases, other matters should be given priority.

The society would benefit from a ban on all forms of advertising because it serves no useful purpose, and can even be damaging. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Advertising in modern society is ubiquitous - on the radio, TV, the internet and in our letterboxes. While advertising has many disadvantages, the positive influence of advertising outweighs the negative. So, I disagree that there should be a ban on all advertisements.

It is true that advertising provides us with information on new products. If it were not for electronic and print advertising, many products would not be bought. In this way, advertising provides an important service to manufacturers and some consumers. Additionally, it fuels the advertising industry, creating jobs for thousands of people. In this respect it has the backbone of many economies of the world.

Furthermore, advertisements touch social issues. For example, when Amitabh Bachhan tells people to bring their children for pulse polio immunization, people listen. Then there are ads against female foeticide which are very informative. Advertisements also teach a lot about the country from where the ads come. This is because through satellite TV we can see ads from all over the world. When we see a Japanese advert of a lady in a kimono, we come to know about the clothes of Japan.

However, Adverts also have a downside. Television commercials are a great example of this. Just as we are enjoying a TV program, a commercial break occurs, forcing us to listen. Advertising can also promote consumerism. People can become greedy for a new product and they can become discontent with what they already have. In the end, the consumer is never really satisfied, always wanting ‘newer and better’ products. Then, ads show dangerous stunts which may be copied by children and they may get hurt. Finally, some ads target children and so children pester parents to buy things which can upset the family budget.

On balance, I believe that as every rose is accompanied by thorns, ads too have their disadvantages. Overall, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. So we should not ban ads. The government can, however, ban some ads which show stunts or which make false claims.

People can perform everyday tasks, such as shopping and banking as well as business transactions, without meeting other people face-to-face. What are the effects of this on an individual and the society as a whole?

It is irrefutable that modern devices and tools of communications like Fax machines, telephone, interactive TV and computer have revolutionised each and every aspect of life. Thanks to telecommunications, daily tasks and business transactions can be performed without meeting other people in person. This has both positive and negative effects on the individual and the society as a whole but the pros far outweigh the cons.

Undoubtedly, online shopping and net banking have made life more convenient than ever before. People can stay home comfortably, looking on the Internet where an ocean of information is available to find what they need. They can log on to the relevant websites and look for detailed information on the products and services that they are interested in. They read the descriptions, examine the pictures, and check the prices. Eventually, they make a decision and send an e-mail to order and pay for it by e-banking. All can be done at home, without scanning newspaper advertisements, reading reference print materials, going around downtown as they did before. As a result, they have more time to take part in social activities, pursue hobbies and interests and communicate with families, which are all indispensable parts of quality life.

The trend of doing business by telecommunications equally benefits the whole society because business can be done more efficiently and effectively at a much lower cost. An extra benefit is that more natural resources can be saved. Moreover, small businesses have almost the same opportunities to advertise and promote their products and services on line to compete with those large ones, which makes the whole society fairer.

As every rose is accompanied with thorns, similarly this situation has a downside. Face to face communication is coming down and people are being isolated from each other. Social life is coming down as people have become self dependent.

To sum up, performing everyday tasks and business transactions by means of telecommunications benefits the individual and the society enormously. There are some drawbacks but there is simply no going back.

Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money since computer technology can replace their functions. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Since centuries libraries are in the service of man. These libraries are the repositories of never ending knowledge known as books. Some people opine that we can do away with traditional libraries because technology has given us the facility of virtual or online libraries. I, however, believe that even though technology has reduced our need to go to the libraries, our traditional libraries can never become redundant.

With the advent of new technologies in the field of computers and telecommunications, revolutionary changes have taken place in the field of Library and Information Science. The shape of traditional libraries containing a large number of printed documents is in the process of being transformed to paper less libraries containing a large number of digitized documents. The facilities offered by networking have not left libraries untouched. Modern libraries are not only digitized but networked also. This has led to the creation of virtual libraries i.e. libraries without walls through which the user has access to information at anytime, anywhere in the world by using the modern tools of communications, such as computers and Internet facilities.

However, one should keep in mind that a person goes to a library not only to search and get information from books but also to sit and study there. The ambience and the peaceful and scholarly atmosphere of the library help one to concentrate more on one's work and study. Thus, libraries will never become redundant. They will always be there to indicate the presence of a well-read and educated society.

Another important point is that it is very difficult to always read books from the computer monitor. Traditional books can be issued from the library and read in the comfort of your bed. Virtual libraries can be accessed only by those who are computer literate. The access to virtual libraries can be affected by power cuts and network failures. Moreover, in a traditional library you are guided by the librarians if you need any help in searching for the book.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that advancement should be welcomed in every field but the importance of the libraries for their fundamental role cannot be put aside. This tendency will add more crowns of success to the importance of libraries.

Nowadays, some universities offer graduate students skills that assist to find employment, but some people believe the main function of a university should be to access knowledge for its sake. What’s your opinion?

As university education is the last stage before the starting of career, many people believe that it prepares students for employment only, but the fact is that it serves a lot many purposes. In this essay I shall discuss the various functions of a university.

Universities provide specialised education in fields such as medical, engineering, commerce etc. They provide library facilities, which support the curriculum. They provide laboratory facilities for science and technology related subjects. They send students to factories and industries so that they get practical experience. This job-oriented training helps them to understand the working conditions and also gives them an idea about competition in the market. They also create job opportunities for the students by arranging campus interviews.

On the other hand, universities also perform other functions which help the students in their personal life. They organise co-curricular activities such as cultural programmes, sports, debates, fairs etc. They gain many qualities such as self-confidence and positive attitude, which help them in their future life. Moreover, some people just go to university for gaining knowledge just out of interest for the subject. For example, a doctor may want to learn French language just for interest in the language.

Furthermore, a university is a place to know more about the world because there are students from across the globe in a university. For many, who may never travel abroad, this may be a chance of a lifetime for them to broaden their horizons and know more about the different cultures of the world. For example, in LPU( Lovely Professional University), there are 200 students from Malaysia, Korea and other parts of the world.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, universities do not simply prepare a person for employment, but also have many other functions.

Some people think that personal happiness is directly related to economic success. Others argue that happiness depends on different factors. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Happiness is a state of mind. Obviously, different people understand it in different ways. I believe that economic success is an essential element to happiness, but it is just one factor and that too not the most important one. Other factors like a stable family life, secure source of income and good heath are more important in achieving happiness.

Undoubtedly, to achieve personal happiness, economic success is necessary but its importance shouldn’t be exaggerated. Apparently, it’s sensible to say that one needs sufficient money to live in a spacious apartment, to have a private car, fashionable clothes and latest household electrical appliances, which are all indispensable for happy life.

However, we have to admit that material success alone can’t ensure that one can lead a happy life. One may have a lot of money but if there are not cordial relations among family members, one can never be happy. In fact, too much wealth can lead to stress in life if children go astray because of too much wealth. A person who has the barest minimum but a very understanding life partner and obedient children can be very happy.

Good health is another factor needed for happiness. Can you imagine a multimillionaire suffering from cancer to be happy? Another big factor is a stable source of income. One can never be happy if one is not sure whether his business will pick up or his job is secure.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, economic success is important but those who cooperate well with co-workers and those who get along well with families, friends and neighbours are more likely to be happy, and it’s the same case with those who pursue a variety of interests and hobbies at leisure and those who are in good health.

Modern buildings change the character and appearance of towns and cities. The government should insist that new buildings be built in traditional styles to protect cultural identity. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Every city has its architectural character, but the similarities between cities are more obvious these days than in the past. However, I disagree that modern buildings should be built in traditional styles. In the following paragraphs I shall put forth my arguments to support my views.

Firstly, in most large cities, land is scarce and consequently it is very valuable. This has led to the construction of tall buildings which occupy only a small area of land while providing lots of floor space where people can live or work. We also have to meet the needs of the growing population for which tall buildings are the answer. Moreover, there is no need for deforestation to provide more land.

Secondly, modern materials are more practical. Now we use concrete and steel instead of stone, timber or brick. Because of these things buildings can be built comparatively quickly using prefabricated materials. They do not use local materials, such as stone, timber or brick, which used to give character to those buildings. Finally, changes are taking place in climate and energy sources are depleting fast. So we need energy efficient houses. Modern buildings use double glass front walls and POP( Plaster of Paris) ceilings which lessen the energy requirements. Moreover, now we need smaller houses as family structure is changing.

However, I believe that every city should have one or two unique buildings which give character and identity to the city. The twin towers in Kuala Lumpur or the Opera House in Sydney are examples of this approach, and I agree with this kind of initiative.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, it is the need of the day that modern buildings be built in today’s contemporary styles and to give identity to a place one or two unique buildings may be there in every city.

Exposure to international media such as films, TV and magazines has a significant impact on local cultures. What do you think has been the impact? Do you think its advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

The emergence of international media has really changed the face of the globe. Today we don’t belong to a big planet called Earth. We are part of a small global village. Exposure to international media has had a positive as well as negative impact on local cultures. In the following paragraphs I shall discuss these impacts. Overall, the impact has been largely positive.

On the positive side, today’s communications and technologies allow a more open spread of culture around the world – people in far corners of the globe are able to be aware of and share each other’s culture. It is a view that sees global culture as generally positive – something that encourages diversity and a mixing of culture and has enabled people around the world to overcome national boundaries to embrace common causes. Thus, cultural globalisation in itself promotes diversity and a respect for other cultures.

Some people hold the view that internationalization of media can overpower national culture. However, this depends on how strong a particular national culture is. In some circumstances, of course, national culture is damaged by aggressively marketed foreign media imports. However, the theory that local cultures will be drowned out and completely disappear under a tide of global media does not appear to hold true at least in the case of India. This is partly because of the strong cultural identity of India. The cultural preferences of Indian viewers are so strong that foreign imports are put at a clear competitive disadvantage relative to the regional and national media produced. In fact, the international media companies have to tailor their output so as to fit into the local cultural setting.

Another positive effect that international media has had on India is that our media companies have improved dramatically under the stiff competition of global media and as a result they have found a place in the international market. This has put our culture on a higher pedestal than any other culture of the world.

To put it in a nutshell I pen down saying that the internationalization of media needs not necessarily undermine national culture. If the local culture is strong enough, it can withstand any foreign influence.

Some people think the main purpose of schools is to turn the children into good citizens and workers, rather than to benefit them as individuals. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

I definitely agree with the statement that the primary aim of schools is to turn the pupils into good citizens and workers rather than benefit them as individuals. I feel that schools have to fulfil both things but the primary aim is towards the welfare of the society and the benefit to the individual automatically ensues.

Schooling can do a lot for shaping children. Firstly, school is a system with so many possibilities for a child to grow into what he or she actually is. For example, teachers are able to mould children by identifying their hidden strengths, and the same strength may later make the child what he actually is in this world for.

Secondly, since children spend a sizeable amount of their time with teachers and a community of boys and girls from different faiths, statuses and family values - there is great possibility for a child to undergo a transformation into a good human being. Teachers are a great force to influence children.

Of course, learning academic subjects is the main aim for what students go to schools. Definitely, the job market requires professional knowledge the most. But it is also true that if students become good citizens and workers, they are themselves equally benefited too.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, raising children into real human beings involves several factors. Among them, the prominent one is good schooling. Schools’ main function is to make students good and responsible workers and the personal benefit to students also takes place simultaneously.

Some people think that good health is a basic human need, so the medical service should not be run by profit-making companies. Do you think the disadvantages of the private health care outweigh the advantages?

Private health care institutions and the government hospitals are at present two major sources of medical service for the public. However, some people suggest that medical service should not be operated by profit-oriented private companies. Personally, I don’t agree with them because the advantages of private health care far outweigh the disadvantages.

Undoubtedly, private health care services can bring a lot of benefits to the people. For example, when you have any medical emergency, you get instant treatment. You don’t have to wait for long hours as in a government hospital. Moreover, private health care institutions, generally, specialize in particular health care service like nursing, midwifery or dental service. These places provide friendly and personalized service and high quality professional medical treatment.

Furthermore, the competition provided by these institutes is the driving force for improvements. Because of private health care institutions, the government owned ones are forced to take measures to better their management, which eventually benefits the public in the long run. What’s more, the private health care institutions are playing a big role in remote areas and rural areas where also they provide services through mobile van hospitals.

On the other hand, there are some disadvantages too. The cost of treatment in these is very high and is not within the pocket of many. Then, because these hospitals have the latest machines and employ the best doctors, the cost of running them is high and so sometimes an unnecessary battery of tests is performed which raises the cost of treatment.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that private health care is absolutely necessary. They provide the best services and so deserve to make profits. However, there should be some provision for keeping a check on unfair practices used in such hospitals.

As most people spend a major part of their adult life at work, job satisfaction is an important element of individual well-being. What are the factors that contribute to job satisfaction? How realistic is the expectation of job satisfaction for all workers?

It is irrefutable that job satisfaction is an essential element, if not the most important one of individual well-being. Obviously, there are many factors which influence one’s job satisfaction directly or indirectly. In the following paragraphs I intend to delve into the factors that contribute to job satisfaction and discuss how practical it is for workers to expect job satisfaction.

Undoubtedly, to make people enjoy what they are doing, certain basic expectations, which are the prerequisites, should be met the moment they start working. A decent income definitely tops the list of one’s expectations for it’s the money you earn that ensures a quality life. Money is needed for everything in life and until a person has the basic necessities of life he can never be satisfied with his job.

However, money alone cannot ensure complete satisfaction from work. Job satisfaction is also very important, which will, in turn, bring many benefits such as pay raise, promotion and also appreciation and recognition from co-workers or even the whole society. Job security is another important factor. Sometimes a secure job is preferred over a one which has a higher pay package. There are many other factors like a relaxing working environment, a harmonious relationship with colleagues and perks like bonus and free travel opportunities.

Admittedly, it is difficult, if not impossible, for all employees to become satisfied with their job completely even if what employers offer is reasonable. If there is job satisfaction, there may not be a good pay and if there are good chances of promotion then there may not be security. Therefore, both employees and employers need to strike a balance between expectations and responsibilities and make the work life more fruitful.

To put it in a nutshell, there are many characteristics of a good job and it is not practical to expect everything in one job. One has to make a compromise at some point or the other and employees should also consider what they are capable of doing before making expectations.

Throughout the history, male leaders always lead us to violence and conflict. If a society is governed by female leaders it will be more peaceful. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

In the history of mankind there have been many records of violence and conflicts in the form of wars. Some people think that if a society were governed by female leaders, it would be more peaceful. However, if we look into the past history we can get numerous examples when there have been wars and conflicts even during the rule of women rulers. So, I disagree with the statement.

If we had female only rulers, we probably wouldn't be alive today. Sure most wars were caused by men, but that is only because 90+% of rulers were men. Most female rulers have caused wars, the fraction is a lot higher than among male rulers. For example, during the Tang Dynasty, the first female ruler of China, Wu Zetian who was well-known for her tyranny and cruelty, launched a series of wars to expand the territory of the empire. This didn’t happen only in China. It was exactly Queen Victoria who invaded India, China and many other countries in close succession. Even our late Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, led India in a war against neighbouring Pakistan which resulted in the creations of Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan.

It is understandable if you say that generally, women are more affectionate, thoughtful and gentle as compared with men. They are also less ambitious and aggressive. However, politics is decided by the interest. If you are the leader of a society, you surely have the required leadership qualities regardless of the gender. Apparently, leaders, male or female, will have to make a decision according to special interest.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, a society will not necessarily become more peaceful merely because it is governed by a female leader because, essentially, there is no difference between female and male leaders when it comes to politics.

A country becomes more interesting and develops more quickly when its population includes a mixture of nationalities and cultures. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

I definitely agree with the statement that cosmopolitan societies are better for the overall progress of a country. That is perhaps why nations such as the U.S.A., Canada and Australia, which are primarily multi-cultural societies, enjoy great prosperity, stability and harmony. In the following paragraphs I shall provide arguments to support my views.

A culturally and ethnically diverse country is so fascinating because there are many different lifestyles reflecting different ethnic origins in it. In a multi-cultural society one can enjoy a variety of unique traditions and customs which is very exciting and adds spice to life. One has more options when it comes to leisure activities. For example, when you want to get together with families, friends or co-workers, you can visit a Chinese restaurant serving cheese chilly and Manchurian or an Italian one serving pizza and pasta. Of course, there are more ethnic foods with exotic flavours available, all depending on your personal preferences. It is the same case with other kinds of entertainment. Even if you just walk on the street, you can see people wearing their traditional outfits of different ethnic styles.

A multi-cultural society can also bring a wide variety of benefits to a nation in terms of economic development. To begin with, the majority of immigrants from different cultural backgrounds are high achievers, including experts, scholars, engineers, business people and other well-trained people. Their arrival means an inflow of expertise, experience, investments as well as a dynamic labour force, which are all key factors to the increase of competitiveness, efficiency and productivity of a nation’s economy.

What is more, the new arrivals know very well the importance of respecting the local traditions and customs. Therefore, they co-operate and collaborate well with the natives. They work very harmoniously side by side in offices, factories and schools. In addition, with a rich blend of peoples, cultures and lifestyles, people in multi-cultural societies tend to be more open-minded and tolerant of other people’s customs and religions.

To sum up, when a nation has a population consisting of different nationalities and cultures, it has many unique advantages which make life there more interesting and society develops quickly. So, it has a magical attraction for so many people all over the world.

It is suggested that all the young adults should undertake a period of unpaid work helping people in the community. Does it bring more benefits or drawbacks to the community and the young people?

The youth of today are generally considered to lack social knowledge and experience which are of crucial importance in their future development. To solve this problem, some people suggest that they should undertake a period of voluntary work in the local community. Personally, I think its pros far outweigh the cons.

Undoubtedly, it can be a win-win approach - that is, it will benefit both the young and the community enormously if young students and employees do a certain period of unpaid work. By helping the elderly, the sick and the disabled directly or participating in charitable activities like raising funds or offering free consultation, young people will certainly gain and accumulate some valuable first-hand experience and know more about the society.

Moreover, young people with such experiences are more likely to become the most motivated ones in academic study or at work, and eventually become responsible citizens of the society. As far as the community is concerned, it will definitely become better with so many zealous young volunteers who are ready to help.

However, there may be some disadvantages if the young provide free service helping people in need. For example, it may conflict with their normal study or work if not arranged well. Then the result may be not as desirable as what is expected. But I think this sort of problem can be easily taken care of by meticulous planning by the authorities.

To conclude, competitiveness of modern life and influence of global culture have isolated children from neighbourhood. So, such a step would be very beneficial to make today’s children feel part of the community.

There is an increasing amount of advertising directed at children which encourages them to buy goods such as toys and snacks. Many parents are worried that these advertisements put too much pressure on children, while some advertisers claim that they provide useful information to children. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Advertisements are ubiquitous nowadays and especially advertising targeting children who are considered vulnerable target by companies. As a result, many parents are worried about this phenomenon. However, some advertisers claim that they provide beneficial information to children. In the following paragraphs I intend to discuss both sides of the argument.

Admittedly, in sensitive areas such as the toy industry, some censorship should be there to limit children’s access to excess advertisement. Because children under a certain age lack abilities to make wise judgment as to what they really want. They are attracted by colourful pictures on advertisement and swayed by misleading information. So they pester their parents to buy those things and this can upset the budget of many families. Even the advertisements of fast foods are bad for children. Children cannot understand that the slim-trim models advertising Mac Donalds burgers hardly ever eat such foods themselves. They are attracted to fast foods and these are very detrimental for their health.

On the other hand, advertisements also provide beneficial information also. For example, the advert of Colgate toothpaste which tells that we should brush our teeth twice daily is good for children. Then there are ads about health drinks such as Complan and Bournvita which are good for children. Furthermore, advertisement also conveys positive attitudes towards life. For instance, the advertising slogan of Nike—“impossible is nothing” is very motivating.

In fact, it is advertisement that presents television audiences and newspaper readers with first-hand information and boosts the economy of a country. It also informs people of the availability of new commodities and their working. Without advertisement, we would not have known that we have so many choices.

To put it in a nutshell I pen down saying that, it is imperative that regulations be imposed on advertisers which make false claims. However, advertisement is indispensable in this highly competitive market and produces much more positive effects than negative ones to the society as a whole.

Multi-cultural societies, in which there is a mixture of different ethnic peoples, bring more benefits than drawbacks to a country. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

I definitely agree with the statement that cosmopolitan societies are better for the overall progress of a country. That is perhaps why nations such as the U.S.A., Canada and Australia, which are primarily multi-cultural societies, enjoy great prosperity, stability and harmony. In the following paragraphs I shall provide arguments to support my views.

Apparently, a multi-cultural society can bring a wide variety of benefits to a nation in terms of economic, cultural and social development. To begin with, the majority of immigrants from different cultural backgrounds are high achievers, including experts, scholars, engineers, business people and other well-trained people. Their arrival means an inflow of expertise, experience, investments as well as a dynamic labour force, which are all key factors to the increase of competitiveness, efficiency and productivity of a nation’s economy.

What is more, the new arrivals know very well the importance of respecting the local traditions and customs. Therefore, they co-operate and collaborate well with the natives. They work very harmoniously side by side in offices, factories and schools. In addition, with a rich blend of peoples, cultures and lifestyles, people in multi-cultural societies tend to be more open-minded and tolerant of other people’s customs and religions.

However, multi-societies also have some problems. Sometimes, people from overseas will try to maintain their unique ethnic cultures with their own distinctive characteristics. These differences many seem trivial, but they can cause some conflicts that make it difficult for immigrants to become assimilated into the mainstream of the local social life. But multi-cultural societies are usually based on equality and diversity, so these problems can eventually be dealt with successfully.

To sum up, after what I have discussed, the advantages of multi-cultural societies far outweigh the disadvantages. That is the reason so many countries make great efforts to attract more immigrants from abroad.

In order to learn a language well, we should also learn about the country as well as the cultures and lifestyles of the people who speak this language. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Language and society are as inextricably linked as a chicken and an egg. Language is the verbal expression of culture. I strongly agree that in order to learn a language ‘well’ you must also know the culture and lifestyle of the people who speak that language. In the following essay I intend to support my views with my arguments.

It is true that some successful language learners have never learnt about the culture and lifestyle of the native speakers. Such learners probably have a gift for learning languages and would be successful under any circumstances with regular effort. For most people, however, learning in a social context is the key to learn the language well.

Language is much more than just a means of communication. It is an art, a science, a culture, an identity and a vision. It is a lifestyle. It is like seeing the world through different eyes. For instance, the Eskimos have 24 different words for snow like - ‘aput’ means snow on the ground, ‘gana’ means drifting snow. Snow has a greater impact on their culture than ours and so on their language. So definitely learning about their culture and lifestyle would help understand the value of these meanings.

There are dialects, nuances and idioms of a language which can only be learnt if we learn about the culture and lifestyle of the people. For example, Punjabi is the mother tongue of people who live in Punjab. It has two dialects which mean ways of pronunciation and speaking. The two dialects are quite different and can only be learnt if you spend time with those people or learn about their culture. Then there are the nuances in a language which means subtle shades of meaning which can also not be learnt without knowing the lifestyle of people. Finally it is more enjoyable to learn a language if we learn about the culture and lifestyle. We are more motivated to learn another language.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, it is definitely needed to know about the culture and lifestyle of people if you have to learn a language well. It makes learning fun and it helps to understand the dialects and nuances of the language.

Some people think museums should be enjoyable places to attract and entertain young people, while others think the purpose of museums should be to educate, not entertain. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.

Museums are places where important objects of cultural, historical and scientific value are preserved and shown to the public. This function makes them play an extremely important role in disseminating human civilization. It is a topic of debate whether the main purpose of museums is to only educate or do both educate as well as entertain.

Museums such as the British Museum, the Louver, and the National Palace Museum are regarded as a vital educational resource because they highlight the achievements that have been accomplished by all mankind throughout history. Visiting them is an eye-opening experience. One will definitely be shocked by what is on display and learn something that they did not know previously. Actually, the majority of those who visit museums expect to know more about museum pieces of art and antiquities or those reflecting the development of science and technology. Therefore, museums should focus on providing more authentic information to meet their expectations.

On the other hand, it is certainly right for museums to improve their management, service and environment to attract young people who obviously need to be encouraged to learn more about human cultural history. If museums focus only on education and do not make things interesting, then they will not be visited much and even their function of education will not be fulfilled.

Today’s interactive museums are always crowded. This is because, people enjoy and learn at the same time. In the planetarium, one feels one is actually in space. This arouses curiosity to know more about the planets and satellites. However, museums should not overdo the entertainment and go astray—by which I mean museums should make it clear that they are not purely a source of entertainment, like a disco bar, cinema or amusement park.

To sum up, museums should try their best to educate people and this can be better done if they make learning fun especially for today’s youth.

Earlier technological developments brought more benefits and changed the lives of ordinary people more than recent technological developments. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”

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.

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.