Some people believe that nowadays we have too many choices. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 Some people believe that nowadays we have too many choices. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

   

In the contemporary times, mankind has been bestowed on with a wide array of options and alternatives in almost all walks of life, be it the goods they consume or the services they avail. This is virtually irrefutable, and has been made possible due to technology and globalisation. 

A broad choice laid at the disposal of humans, in terms of basic necessities like food, clothing and consumer goods is clearly visible if one looks around the markets are flooded with edible merchandise, clothes, and other products in a range of prices. This has been made possible due to tremendous advancements made in the production methods, which has allowed the producers to churn out goods in a great variety with different price tags. Now people belonging to diverse income stratas can choose from a variety of goods as per their budgets and affordability.

Furthermore, people, especially holidayers, have the whole world at their doorsteps. Now they can travel to any corner of the globe for leisure and tourism. There is a wide list of holiday destinations to suit budgets of the travellers belonging to socio economic backgrounds, they do not have to run from pillar to post in search of affordable vacations. 

This  does not stop here as even the students find themselves inundated with innumerable opportunities to gain education. They no more have to settle for a narrow list of courses, but enjoy the liberty of enrolling into any academic pursuit that addresses their aspirations and ambitions, brought to them by the developments made in the field of education.

Hence , I concur that the fusion of innovation with transforming attitudes has left many bemused, due to its offerings in umpteen number of alternatives appearing in various manifestations. One is left wondering where this will stop.

Some people say that the Olympic Games no longer play a role in the 21st century. Do you agree or disagree?

 Some people say that the Olympic Games no longer play a role in the 21st century. Do you agree or disagree?

Do you agree or disagree?

• Some people say that the Olympic Games no longer play a role in the 21st century. 

Do Olympic games enjoy similar relevance in the current century or not?

Yes? They do not enjoy similar significance

• Globalization has superseded such expensive carnivals in terms of objectives of bringing peoples together

• Nowadays many world championships targeting specific sporting disciplines are being organized regularly, which are much smaller and more convenient to manage. 

• They do not push the countries to spend extensively on creating new facilities for visiting contingents. 

• When focus has shifted to more crucial areas of development, these kind of events should be done away with 

No? 

• Olympics can never lose their importance come what may, these events allow even those countries to exhibit their sporting prowess  which lack resources to train their athletes to qualify for specific championships 

• These kinds of transnational carnivals create a fervor among people from all across the world, by virtue of being large scale and create an opportunity to explore local culture and traditions of host countries. 

• Countries are also able to generate interest among the masses for sports and healthy lifestyles 

Olympic games have although been the most revered concept created in the previous century that could help bring diverse peoples together, they seem to have lost their significance in the current times, as the detractors of such events suggest. Nevertheless, there are some who quash the former opinion. 

Doing away with such sporting events - that aimed at integrating inhabitants of the planet - seems to be a valid notion: these have been superseded by more recent phenomenon of globalization, which has turned out to be a more potent tool of creating harmony among the disparate cultures by allowing uninhibited access to trade, business, art, views and lifestyles, to name a few, that has helped  forge closer bonds and generate bonhomie between those hailing from various  ethnicities, nationalities and cultures.  

Moreover, the contemporary times have presented new challenges to mankind: overpopulation and dearth of space, and so on. However, the global carnivals entail creating new facilities every time, which entail infusion of colossal amounts of money,  and allocating huge invaluable real estate, which could have been used for other more objective work rather than tying it down permanently for exhibiting national pride for a fortnight.

Nonetheless, the supporters of these events refuse to surrender, they feel such happenings offer a chance to even the poor countries to exhibit their sporting prowess at the global level which is otherwise impossible - the specific discipline events permit entry of highly accomplished athletes who consume huge  resources that many nations can ill-afford to render to their natives. Thus, such sporting festivals can never lose their relevance.  

Overall, controversies apart, I fail to subscribe to this statement, and feel Olympics shall continue to survive since it not only allows rich but also poor countries to highlight their sporting achievements.

Some people say that music can bring people of different cultures and ages together. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

 

Some people say that music can bring people of different cultures and ages together. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? 

There is a common belief that music has a potential to bring people from various ethnicities, nationalities, age groups and sociocultural backgrounds on one platform, but nonetheless, this view is countered by a lobby.   

The notion of music integrating individuals from disparate backgrounds and age groups finds its support in the fact that every genre of this form of art emanates from the same seven notes which form the foundation of all the rhythms. Therefore, listeners, regardless of their cultural backgrounds, are easily able to correlate and assimilate any kind of music. They are swayed by the compositions even if they can hardly appreciate or comprehend the accompanying lyrics: this art makes them dive deep into the world that is surrounded by sounds that emanate from their souls. 

This can be illustrated by presenting the examples of today where the young are seen listening, dancing, and playing the tunes that they seldom have heard in their cultures and social groups. Several parties, discotheques and events are known to play   songs and compositions of diverse countries and types: pop, folk, jazz to afford an enjoyable experience to the audience. 

Nevertheless, there are some, despite being small in numbers,  who doubt the ability of music in bringing people on a single platform. They often cite the discord that results when listeners, belonging to different age-groups strongly resisting songs and compositions that they find appalling, e.g. the elderly find modern genres annoying while the young generation has little liking for classical, often causing arguments and fights between them. 

Overall, controversies apart, I am in complete agreement with this notion and feel that music transcends political, cultural and  ethnic boundaries,  and it renders harmony rather than creating friction among those hailing from different parts of the globe. 

 

Giving lectures in auditoriums to large numbers of students is an old way of teaching. With the technology available today there is no justification for it, and everything should be done online. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your own opinion.

Giving lectures in auditoriums to large numbers of students is an old way of teaching. With the technology available today there is no justification for it, and everything should be done online. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your own opinion.

Technological advancements have brought significant changes in walks of life, including education where it has  opened up an option of online classrooms. This has prompted many to suggest shelving classroom-based teaching methods. As to why technology is considered as the future of education will be discussed in this essay.

Technology has not only introduced the concept of distance learning but also, it has removed the time and place barrier from the way of learning. For instance, with the improvement in the educational structure; a person who is willing to go for higher qualifications can enroll for classes through the internet with ease without causing any harm to set schedule. Also, with the help of such growth, one can provide custom made tutorials to anyone across the globe such as providing guided lessons to a student sitting oceans apart which can be viewed anytime with a facility to watch lessons multiple times.

Similarly,  conventional  teaching is a tedious way of imparting knowledge. In such a  setting teachers usually interact with more than a hundred students at one time, and a few students may not be able to cope with the others. For example, in a traditional setup, where the educator is focusing on completing the syllabus, will not be able to repeat the whole chapter for any new student in the middle of the session. Moreover, such arrangements also face resistance from those who fail to express their doubts fearing of being judged for not being able to comprehend. 

In hindsight, it is needless to say that technology has not only enhanced the learning experiences in many ways but also has laid unprecedented convenience at the disposal of learners, whereas, the classroom sessions  are now only restricted to areas which lack the better infrastructure and technology.

Establishment of superstores has resulted in closure of small shops. Is it a positive or negative development?

Establishment of superstores has resulted in closure of small shops. Is it a positive or negative development?

 

An intriguing debate is brewing up since a lobby believes that replacement  of small retail stores with supermarkets is a positive trend while the opponents to this thought assert that is a detrimental evolution.  

 

The superstores render individuals a rich profusion of benefits. People can find a wide array of things under one roof, they are not required to visit several shops available at distance apart. By virtue of this, people benefit in the form of saving a precious commodity that is the time, which can be utilised further for other commitments.

 

Furthermore, supermarkets render good quality goods within an economical price range. These establishments procure merchandise  in huge quantities that also mostly directly from buyers, which automatically results in reduced costs of purchase. The benefit of these savings is extended to the shoppers. Moreover, these places offer a great option of home delivery with no extra charges, which is the cherry on the cake situation for the shoppers engrossed in their hectic schedules.

 

However, the commodities in superstores are arranged in an organised manner which catches the attention of consumers immediately, compels them to buy more than what they need, thereby pushing them into a financial crisis. Moreover, unlike small shops, supermarkets render things in the customised packets according to the quantity required, which many times leads to the wastage because of people buying excessive amounts. Additionally, absence of small retail outlets has weakened the sense of community since most of these stores used to act as meeting points for the residents.  

 

To reiterate, I strongly feel that despite some negative aspects, development of supermarkets is accompanied by numerous positive aspects which prevail over the unfavorable outcomes: these  establishments have benefited buyers in multiple ways.