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.

Speak about the importance of explorers in today’s society - How they get motivation to explore new places - Who should give finance to them - Would you like to go on an explorer trip

• It is basic human nature to learn new things and to explore new things
• America was discovered by Columbus and India by Vasco Da Gama
• The 15th to 17th century is called the age of exploration
• In early days, exploration was done to find trading partners, new goods, and new trade routes
• But, it also gave us a lot of geographical knowledge.
• What all we know about the world today is because of these explorers
• Early explorers were mostly from Europe.
• They needed a lot of funding for this purpose.
• They needed ships and many other things to set on their journeys
• In those days, it was very adventurous to go on such trips. The people who went were not sure whether they would return safe and sound or not
• Mostly this funding was provided by their governments
• They also wanted the knowledge of new places
• Nowadays there are a lot of technical advancements and so that we can know about the planet through many other sources like the satellites
• Still, I think there is scope for explorers because when they go to new places they learn about new cultures and also bring back knowledge of the flora and fauna of that place.
• I think it is very adventurous to go on an exploration trip.
• I would really like to go on one. But I don't think it would be possible now
• One day, when I have earned a lot of money and am well settled in life, I would surely go on this adventure
• I feel there are still many unexplored parts of this planet earth

More and more people work at home and study at home with the development of computer technology. Do you think it is a positive or negative development?

It is true that the Internet has become an important part of modern life. Telecommuting, which means working from home with the help of telephone lines, and, online and distance education have become very common. This situation has both, advantages as well as disadvantages.

The most important benefit is that it saves time and money of employees and students. They don’t need to waste time going and coming from work or college. They save on the fare also. What is more, they can set their own timetable of work and study. On top of that, people find more time for their hobbies and family commitments. This situation also benefits the physically challenged and those living in remote areas. You can get online education from any university in any part of the world and you can work for any office in any corner of the world. So, technology has given birth to many opportunities for many people for whom none existed earlier. In this sense it is narrowing the bridge between the rich and the poor.

Another big advantage is to the environment. As less people have to move out of their homes, less petrol and diesel is used and less pollution is caused. Traffic congestion, which is a big problem in the cities, is also lessened. We all know that at peak hours, traffic moves at a snail’s pace because of which people are forced to slow down the tempo of life even in this fast-paced world.

On the negative side, there is a decrease in face to face communication which is isolating us socially. Working alone from home can be very boring at times. When you are in a proper office, there is a work atmosphere which keeps you going. Moreover, I do not think it is possible for a computer to be as effective as a real teacher. Many jobs and subjects involve physical action. For example, it would not be possible to study dance or drama without contact with others. If everybody worked and studied from home, imagine how unhealthy and lazy they would become.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that technology has eased our life in many ways and this is both a negative as well as a positive development but on the whole the positive side outweighs the negative side.

Memorization of information by frequent repetition, namely rote learning, plays a role in many education systems. To what extent do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

There are different methods of learning. Two such methods are ‘rote learning’ and ‘meaningful learning’. Both have their own pros and cons.

There are many advantages of rote learning. To begin with, it is very helpful where quick memorization is required, such as learning one line in a play or memorizing a telephone number. It is also needed where verbatim recall of definitions or numbers is required. We all know that we need to remember phone numbers, mathematical formulae and definitions as such. If we don’t cram them then we will not be able to reproduce them when needed and if any small part is changed then the whole thing goes wrong. Rote learning is the only way to learn certain things like irregular verbs and the vocabulary of a foreign language. There is no logic behind irregular verbs and so we need to memorise them by heart. Finally, rote learning is used by many students to pass exams.

On the other hand there are some disadvantages of rote learning. Firstly, the knowledge acquired by rote is not retained for long. If a person does not repeat information learnt by rote for few days then the whole thing can be forgotten. Moreover, information learned by rote cannot be applied in a wide variety of new problems or concepts. For example, if we learn something by rote in maths then we cannot apply it in other subjects like physics. In meaningful learning the transferability of knowledge is high. Finally, it can be very boring to learn everything by rote.

Definitely, rote learning should not be the only method of learning. Meaningful learning is a must if we want to progress in life and apply our skills in varied fields. However, rote learning has its own importance in some situations. So, the education systems should incorporate both rote and meaningful learning.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, rather than viewing rote learning as something opposed to understanding, it can be viewed in a complementary role. As the left hand is to the right, so is memory to understanding and reason

Because of the global economy, many goods including what we use as daily basic produced by other counties have to be transported for a long distance. To what extent do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Globalisation has revolutionized our world in many aspects. Now, we don’t belong to a big planet Earth. We belong to a small global village. Everything is available everywhere. There are many advantages and disadvantages of transporting goods over a long distance. In my opinion, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

On the positive side, transporting goods over a long distance gives us a lot of choices. We can taste a variety of fruits and vegetables from all parts of the world. For example, about ten years ago, we hardly saw kiwi fruit which is from New Zealand. But, now it has a place on every fruit stand. Earlier, we had very few shoe brands like Bata and Carona but now the market is flooded with Reeboks, Nike, Adidas and other foreign brands.

Secondly, many people get employment in this field. Small businesses have a chance to expand globally and it increases the overall economy of the country. Finally, it helps in developing good relations between countries which helps in international cooperation and peace. If countries are dependent upon one another’s economic success then armed conflict would be less likely.

On the downside, importing goods can have a negative effect on local culture. This can be seen in countries such as Japan where imported food has become more popular than traditional, local produce, eroding people’s understanding of their own food traditions. A second major disadvantage is pollution. When goods are transported thousands of miles by road, sea and air, it increases pollution from exhaust fumes.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, importing goods has both merits and demerits but the pros outweigh the cons.

International travel is becoming cheaper than before, so more and more countries open their doors to tourists. Do the advantages of the increased tourism outweigh the disadvantages?

It is irrefutable that international tourism has taken mammoth dimensions. In fact it has become the backbone of many economies of the world. This situation has both pros and cons. In my opinion, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

International tourism can have many benefits for individuals. The most important benefit is that tourism provides regular employment for many local people who might otherwise be unemployed. They can find work in restaurants or hotels, or with tourist agencies as guides or drivers, for example, and earn regular wages. This, in turn, means that they may be able to save money and improve their standard of living. The second reason is that tourists spend money in the country and this allows local businesses such as restaurants, bars and taxi companies to flourish. In turn, other businesses, food suppliers or petrol stations, for instance, may be established in order to provide services to support the companies which cater for tourists. In other words, the whole economy of the region develops.

A third reason is that in order for tourists to be able to visit remote areas, roads, airports and hotels have to be built and local people also benefit by being able to use these new facilities. Furthermore, when communications improve, it becomes possible for other industries to move into the area, bringing with them more employment opportunities and increased prosperity. A final reason why I am in favour of tourism is that visitors from outside bring fresh ideas and different ways of doing things to the local community. Consequently, local people may learn from tourists. Likewise, visitors learn about the local people and culture, and return home with a deeper understanding of the host country.

On the other hand, that there are some problems associated with international tourism. Firstly, there is the increasing crime rate. Some locals see tourists as easy prey because, not only are they in unfamiliar territory and therefore less able to take care of themselves, but also they carry visible items of wealth, such as cameras and jewellery which can be disposed of quickly for a profit. Another major problem is health. With greater mobility comes greater danger of spreading contagious diseases around the world. Also to be considered is the natural environment, which can be seriously threatened by too many visitors. Australia's Great Barrier Reef, for example, is in danger of being destroyed by tourists and there are plans to restrict visitors to some of the more delicate coral reefs.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that international tourism has both advantages and disadvantages. However, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Now, a lot of charities and organisations have to publicize their activities by setting up a number of days to name the special day like National Children’s day and National non smoking day. Why do they do so? What are the effects?

Charities and organisations are formed to help the needy sections of society. Generally they are NPOs or non-profit organisations. Nowadays it has been seen that they set up a number of days like ‘Mother’s Day’ and ‘No Smoking Day’. In this essay I shall discuss the causes and effects of this phenomenon.

The main reason why these NPOs do so is to raise funds for their working. This is very essential because for every activity they do to help others, they need money and other resources. When they publicise their activities, they get people’s attention and so people contribute whole-heartedly. Sometimes, in times of calamities, they need a lot of funds and manual help. They need voluntary workers. For example, recently in Ladakh, a cloud-burst caused havoc. So many people lost their lives and there was so much damage of property. The Rotary Club and Jaycee Club of my hometown sent many volunteers to help. The government alone cannot be at all places. Because of such organisations people get timely help and a lot of burden is eased from the government’s shoulders.

When these organisations name special days, it brings people together. With more activities opened and more days named, more and more people will focus their attention and will put their time and energy and will realise the importance of doing for others. As a consequence, community spirit increases in society. As it is nowadays, people are getting self-centred and alienated from each other. So, such days are the need of the day.

Such days keep our youth in touch with our culture and traditions. With the exposure to global culture, youth today are forgetting their traditions. To establish some days may help the young people understand the importance of such events. Such days also increase awareness of offering help selflessly. Hence some virtuous habit may pass from one generation to the other. Finally, such days deter people from bad habits. For e.g. on National No Smoking Day, people are made aware about the harmful effects of smoking.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, charities and NPOs publicise their activities because they need funds and they name certain days so that people come together and celebrate and realise the importance of community and brotherhood.

Once children start school, teachers have more influences on their intellectual and social development than parents. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

I definitely agree with the statement that once children get admission in school, teachers have more impact on them than even their parents. In the following paragraphs, I intend to put forth my arguments in support of my view.

To begin with, children spend quality time with teachers. Although they spend more time with parents at home but this time is not as productive as the small amount of time spent with teachers. We all know that parents are busy with their work most of the time and even if children are around, they hardly pay any attention to them. Teachers, on the other hand are in school for the students. All the time they are either teaching the students or guiding them in extra-curricular activities. They keep children focussed on study and as a result have more intellectual impact on them.

What is more, teachers are role models for students. They are scholars in action. They not only influence intellectually but socially. Students inadvertently follow their teachers’ behaviour too. They observe how the teacher walks, talks and tackles difficult situations. At home they have parents to guide them socially, but it is seen that in nuclear families, parents hardly find time for this. Whatever social skills children learn are from TV or other activities they do at home.

Teachers also guide students for their future careers. Students follow teachers more than parents because they feel that teachers are more aware of the world around them and they have better capability of guiding them. So, they depend on teachers more than parents.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, once the schooling starts, teachers and parents both have influence but teachers influence children more.

Aircraft uses more fuel than cars and produces more pollution. Some people suggest the non-essential use of aircraft like international travel should be discouraged. Do you agree or disagree?

It is irrefutable that the fuel consumed by one long-distance flight is consumed by a car in several years’ time, and the amount of pollution it produces is also more. Therefore, some people suggest that non-essential flights, including international travel, should be discouraged. I totally disagree whit this statement. I feel that even though cars produce less pollution and use less fuel, still we should focus on limiting the number of cars. Discouraging flights would lead to many other problems.

At a time when people all over the world worry about the decreasing level of fossil fuels and global warming, it is right to take action to save the planet earth. However, to simply discourage flights is not the answer. International tourism has become the backbone of many economies of the world. Many countries are earning from tourism. Many people are employed in this industry. Many businesses like hotels and leisure centres are dependent on tourists. So, if we discourage international tourism, it would create new and even worse problems. Many businesses would go broke and many people would be without jobs.

Air flight also enables intercultural exchanges between countries. The advent of cheap air fare makes it possible for people the world over to travel regularly, regardless of the purpose of the trip. Therefore, people have the opportunities to learn from different cultures and have a better understanding of countries they used to be unfamiliar with. This, in turn, enhances cultural communications between countries.

What we should do is to limit the use of cars. The number of cars is increasing at a very fast pace. This is creating too many problems. Cars are using too much of fossil fuels; they are creating a lot of pollution; they are leading to traffic congestion on the roads and they are also causing accidents.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, traveling by air should not be discouraged. Instead, the use of cars should be limited.

International travel makes people prejudiced rather than broad-minded. What are its causes and what measures can be taken to solve this problem?

It is irrefutable that international tourism has taken mammoth dimensions. Unfortunately, sometimes, international tourism creates tension rather than understanding between people from different cultures. In this essay I intend to delve into the causes of this situation and suggest some ways forward.

The most important reason why some are opposed to international tourism is that tourists may unknowingly show disrespect for local culture. For instance, we generally cover our heads in a religious place. A tourist may not do so or take his shoes inside a temple. This may offend the local people. Sometimes, youngsters may be attracted towards the western culture which the tourists bring with them and many may find this as a threat to the local culture.

Moreover, the tourist dollar may not be helping the local people. We all know that tourists stay in five star hotels and enjoy the best facilities. They may be taking two showers a day where as the local people may not have enough water to drink. This has been the case in Shimla which is a very popular hill station in Himachal Pradesh India. On top of that when tourists buy souvenirs from local artisans, they bargain a lot. The poor artisans, who look up to tourists for their livelihood, end up earning the bare minimum. Finally, tourism creates pollution, which helps nobody. We are all suffering the consequences of global warming.

The solutions are not simple. We cannot discourage tourism. It is the backbone of many economies of the world. First of all, the tour operators should take the onus of guiding the tourists about the main things of local culture. Secondly, the tourists should stay with locals as paying guests. This would be a win-win situation for both. Local people would earn and the tourist would taste the local culture. Finally, ecotourism should be promoted. For example, if an elephant ride is possible, the tourist should avoid using car. After all a good tourist is one – who takes away nothing but photographs and leaves behind nothing but footprints.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, international tourism does have a downside to it but many steps can be taken to lessen the negative effects.

Some people think people can exploit animals for any purpose they need, while others do not think so. What is your opinion?

The discussion about whether or not animals should be used for the benefit of humans is a very debatable one. Some individuals are of the opinion that we can exploit animals for our benefit. Others hold the opposite view. It is necessary to look at both sides of the argument before forming an opinion.

Animals have always been used by humans in many different ways, for example, as food, for work, and in research. Using animals for food reflects what happens throughout the animal kingdom where carnivorous, or meat-eating, animals kill other animals for food. Humans have achieved dominance over animals and are able to use them to work, for example in the fields or to pull carts and other transport. Animals undoubtedly suffer during medical research, but this research may prevent humans from suffering in the future.

Many people, however, argue that it is wrong to cause suffering to animals for the benefit of humans. Meat is not a necessary part of our diet, and there are many healthy vegetarians around the world who prove this. Technology has largely replaced the use of animals in the fields and for transport. Research carried out on animals is often not valid for human cases as an animal's reactions may be very different from those of a human. There are useful alternative forms of research available now, such as the use of tissue cell cultures. More and more people are unhappy to cause suffering to animals if there is an alternative.

In conclusion, I believe that animals should not be used for human gain. It is time to concentrate resources on developing alternative sources of food and methods of research, and allow animals a pain-free existence.

A new law you would like to introduce

• There are various laws imposed by the government from time to time.
• All these laws are for the benefit of society in general
• Without these laws we would be living in utter chaos
• If I get a chance to introduce a new law it would be ‘ one car per family law’
• You know madam/sir, the number of cars is increasing day by day and this is creating a lot of problems.
• There is a lot of traffic congestion on the roads
• There are also accidents because of cars
• Then there is a lot of pollution like air and noise pollution
• Nowadays we belong to a materialistic society
• People are not satisfied with few things
• They want more and more
• I think if there is one car in a family, it is enough for the needs of that family
• But nowadays, each member of the family wants his own personal car
• There is no parking space within the house for more than one car
• So people park their cars on the streets and roads
• This leads to traffic jams which wastes a lot of time
• So, I think, if government seriously thinks about it, it would benefit everyone.

Some people think that media should not report detail of crimes to the public. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, we are surrounded by a variety of media like the Internet, newspaper and TV, which are very informative, connecting us to the whole world. It is a highly debatable issue whether media should report smallest details of crime to the masses or not. I feel that the media should be very judicious in selecting what to report and how much to report. So, I agree with the statement. In this essay, I intend to support my views with my arguments.

As I see it, the news outlets should pay more attention to the affairs themselves, rather than the details of the crimes. To start with, the details of crimes make a misleading statement to the children and adolescents who are curious about the process of committing crimes, and are likely to copy the criminal actions blindly.
Moreover, the excessive violence and pornographic contents can also raise the adults' criminal tendencies. In the other words, detailed crime news can generate individuals' potential desire to commit a crime, thus induce many social problems.

Moreover, the detailed report of a crime does not show enough respects to the victims and their family. For example, if any murder or robbery has taken place in someone’s house then if it is shown in detail on TV, the whole privacy of those people is lost. Another very strong argument in favour of censorship of media is that sometimes this detailed description can help the criminals also. For instance, when terrorists attacked Hotel Taj in Mumbai, the media reported details of the commandos’ position on TV. This was also viewed by the terrorists hiding in the hotel. They changed their positions accordingly.

However, the opponents claim that we have a right to know every detail and so media should report every detail. I still feel that it would lead to more problems. I think the media has an obligation to show the right direction to the public. It should report news in a balanced manner rather than high-lighting the details of the crime.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that although it is the duty of the media to keep us informed, the details of crime should not be shown.

Some people think the main benefit of international cooperation is in protection of the environment, while others think that the main benefit is in the world business. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Today we do not belong to a big planet Earth. We are part of a global village. This has lead to a greater need for international cooperation in many crucial issues such as poverty, starvation, environmental protection, terrorism and global warming. Some individuals are of the opinion that the main benefit of global cooperation has been in protection of the environment, but others hold the view that the main benefit is in international trade. In this essay I intend to delve into both views and finally give my opinion.

International cooperation does contribute a lot in environmental protection. First of all many governments have realised that it is a grave issue and have taken steps to aware the masses of the simple steps they can take to save the environment. Then, the Kyoto agreement was signed by many countries in the United Nations Charter that they would not set up any industry which would emit more than 5.2% carbon dioxide.

The role international cooperation in world business is self evident. Today, we can buy any foreign brand like Reebok and Nike in our country and our Indian brands like Videocon have touched the international market. This has brought the economy of developing countries quite close to the developed ones.

In my opinion, although a lot has been done in both areas, a lot more needs to be done in the field of environment. The steps already taken are not enough and the governments need to tackle this issue on a war-footing. The rate at which global warming is occurring will transform the whole Earth into a boiling pot one day and leave it un-inhabitable.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, international co-operation has benefited the world business much more than the environment.

Some people think that in the modern society individuals are becoming more dependent on each other while others say that individuals are becoming more independent of each other. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Whether we are dependent or independent of each other is difficult to say. In some cases, we heavily rely on others but in others, we are quite self-sufficient. In this essay I intend to delve into both views and finally give my opinion.

There are times when we are dependent on others. When we are little, we are cared by our parents otherwise we would have no access to food, shelter, and clothing. At the same time, we are emotionally important to them, so they always remember they are responsible for raising us up. When we are grown up, we start to learn at schools, and then it is the teachers on whom we rely heavily. When we are employed, we need to work closely with our colleagues and our employers also depend on our productivity.

We are also independent of each other in many ways. We don’t need to go to the banks. We can do net-banking sitting at home. We can do online shopping. We don’t need to go and depend on salesmen. We can entertain ourselves alone by computer games and internet. We can even study at home through online education and distant education. We are not dependent on teachers for imparting education. We can book railway and air tickets online and are not dependent on booking clerks. We can eat ready to eat food available in the market. We are not dependent on somebody in our home to cook for us.

Whatever arguments we put forth in support of both views, the fact cannot be denied that man is a social animal and will always be dependent on others. This dependence may be direct or indirect. When we are seemingly independent, we are still dependent on people behind the technology. For example, when we do net banking we depend on all those software developers who have made it possible for us. When we eat ready to eat food we depend on those who cook and pack that food.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that we are all part of a society and it is not possible for us not to depend on others. This dependence, however, may be visible or invisible.

Some people think the cheap air flight gives ordinary people more freedom. However, others think the cheap air flight should be banned because it pollutes the air and brings many other problems. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

In today's world, we are now in a position to enjoy cheaper air flights than in the past. However, there is an argument that they should be banned due to the levels of pollution they generate. Those in favour of cheap air flight say it is advantageous in terms of freedom and the opportunities to learn from other countries. In this essay I shall examine both sides of this issue and finally give my opinion.

Cheap air flight can be beneficial in many ways. One of them is the opportunities to go overseas. Earlier, only the affluent could afford it, but now it is within the pocket of the ordinary man. Some of the discounted tickets are fairly cheap and flying abroad is no longer a dream for many. Moreover, small businesses have prospered because of the ease of travel because of these flights.

In addition to this, cheap air flight enables intercultural exchanges between countries. The advent of cheap air fare makes it possible for people the world over to travel regularly, regardless of the purpose of the trip. Therefore, people have the opportunities to learn from different cultures and have a better understanding of countries they used to be unfamiliar with. This, in turn, enhances cultural communications between countries.

The argument that cheap flight should be banned is also justified to some extent. It is generally known that aeroplanes consume a vast amount of oil and the gas emission generated by an airplane is enormous. If cheap air tickets are not controlled, the environmental impacts would only get worse in the long run. Besides, cheap air tickets at times are extremely disturbing in terms of certain conditions that go along with them. One problem is that the date and time cannot be changed once purchased. As a result, many people find it inconvenient if they are to reschedule due to emergency.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, the issue of cheap air fares is complex and there is no easy solution as both sides have merits. However, I am convinced that giving people the freedom to travel is essential, but at the same time people should be made aware of avoiding un-necessary travel. Banning such flights is not the answer.

Schools offer a wide range of courses such as physical education, music, economics, philosophy, math, English，geography, physics and history. Among all these subjects, which one do you think is the most important and which one is the least important?

To decide which course is the most important and which is the least important is a daunting task. Each and every subject has its own importance which cannot be under estimated but if I have to choose one I would chose physical education as the most important one and philosophy as the least important one.

Physical education is the most important for all students at school level. These classes improve students' health, now and in the future. They burn calories, and this helps them to maintain a healthy weight. The classes' regular exercise develops good habits for the present and the future. People who exercise as children are more likely to continue exercising when they're adults. This reduces the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and other serious illnesses.

Physical education also improves students' mental health. It can be difficult to sit in class all day. Students can exercise and then relax after their physical activity. This helps them to feel happier and more comfortable at school. The classes also include activities that help with stress reduction. Walking, stretching, and yoga are just a few of the exercises that reduce stress. When they have good mental health, they can do well in other subjects also.

The students' favourite part of physical education classes may be the opportunity to communicate with their classmates. They enjoy talking to their friends while they play games. The students also learn how to work in teams. Teamwork is an important skill that they will use when playing sports or even at their jobs in the future.

As for the least important course, I have to say that I think philosophy is not so important after all. This is a subject which can be there at the higher level for those who want to study it. That is why, perhaps, in our Indian school curricula philosophy has no place.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, although all subjects are important, I believe that physical education is most important and philosophy is least important.