Governments spend a lot of money on wildlife protection instead of starting new projects. Is this a positive or a negative trend? Give your opinion and examples from your experience.

 Governments spend a lot of money on wildlife protection instead of starting new projects. Is this a positive or a negative trend? Give your opinion and examples from your experience.

Benefits

- This is beneficial since such investments can help nature in various ways: protecting animals and greenery

- These green buffers help in preventing soil erosion but also regulating the buildup of greenhouse gases

- Help in creating and conserving a rich source of raw materials, which are used for various purposes

Drawbacks

- Has hampered several projects of construction, irrigation and other important things which are vital for society; thus halting the progress

Nowadays, a lot of money is being spent on preserving wildlife by the governments. Some believe it is favorable evolution, whereas others consider that this money could be spent on various other projects.

A lobby of environmentalists regards this step as a beneficial phenomenon since such investments can help nature in various ways: protect wild flora and fauna, as well as their habitats, the forests. These green buffers not only help in preventing soil erosion but also regulating the buildup of greenhouse gases. This can prove to be extremely beneficial for the humans who have become a subject of wrath of nature in various forms, like flooding and droughts, to name a few.

Moreover, by saving wildlife, society is creating and conserving a rich source of raw materials, which are used for different purposes: many secretions of wild animals are used in medicines and different foods such as mushroom, Cranberries, and so on, are obtained from these places which are consumed by humans. The end results of this are beneficial for mankind and are used for their convenience by all.

However, this has also hampered many projects of construction, irrigation and other important things which are vital for society; thus halting the progress, so the critics believe that this money could be utilized for other purposes which is the need of the hour for the upliftment of society from poverty. As per them, investing this money in organisational bodies who provide food and shelter to them would have been a better choice as many go hungry to bed everyday.

Overall, as per some, it is important to invest the money for other projects rather than wildlife, I believe, saving wildlife is much more important for humans to survive as they depend on each other for various needs, and hence it is a positive development.

The government spends about $220 million a year supporting museums and galleries in the UK and a similar amount subsidizing the visual and performing arts. This is a huge sum to spend on minority interests, and the money would be better spent on more important things. It should be up to the people who enjoy cultural attractions to pay for them. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The government spends about $220 million a year supporting museums and galleries in the UK and a similar amount subsidizing the visual and performing arts. This is a huge sum to spend on minority interests, and the money would be better spent on more important things. It should be up to the people who enjoy cultural attractions to pay for them. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 

Why should art and history enthusiasts bear the expenditure of sustaining museums and art galleries 

• Public money is better used in alleviating social issues and addressing concerns of those who find it hard to survive 

• Visiting museums and art galleries is an elite fad and they can afford to pay for their pastimes 

Why should it not be their responsibility 

• Art and culture is a collective responsibility and not of a single group: these are the true face of the creative side and glorious past of a society.   

• Perpetuating the beliefs

• These places need regular maintenance and upgradation that can only be funded continuously by the state, and charging buffs will reduce their numbers and leave these places to deteriorate.   

• They are also paying taxes and they, like others, have a right to demand such leisure  facilities free of cost. 

The colossal investments by the British government for preserving and promoting museums and various forms of arts, has irked numerous critics who suggest that this expenditure should be the onus of the admirers of these venues. Nevertheless, this proposal can be challenged on various grounds. 

To start with, those who harbor this view, vehemently assert that it is worthless to squander invaluable public money on something that is followed by a very small proportion of the population. It would be more feasible for this section to pay for upkeep of such places, so that the money amassed from taxpayers can be used to alleviate  various social maladies like impoverishment, illiteracy and crime, to name a few. This would help render a great relief to those who lack access to even the basic amenities such as food, shelter and clothing. 

However, it will be quite inappropriate to yield to the whims of the detractors as venues that host disparate/diverse/different manifestations/forms of culture and traditions in the form of art and history, act as repositories of the knowledge and wisdom accumulated over the eons along with representing the creative side of the society. These places and forms also aid in perpetuating native customs and beliefs,and therefore, they happen to be a collective responsibility, rather than of those who are keen/avid followers of such endeavors. These people instead play a critical role of creating enlightenment around and persuading others to appreciate their past and also creativity.

 Overall, I consider this proposal to be ludicrous/ laughable/ absurd/ ridiculous and fail to subscribe to this in absolute terms. It is the history and arts that have assisted the society to evolve into what it is today. Thus, the state support for such undertakings should continue.  

Whether or not someone achieves their aims is mostly related to luck. To what extent do you agree or disagree? To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Whether or not someone achieves their aims is mostly related to luck. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Destiny has an overwhelming bearing / effect on the success 

• When luck comes into play, everything falls into place 

• Luck also enable people to see the things and take timely decisions 

It is not luck / destiny 

• It is hardwork and dedication which defines the path to triumph 

• Smartness and adroitness can play a great role  

• Skills 

In contemporary times, a profound debate has ensued between various rival factions about the critical component of success. While some attribute achievements to fate, others contest this notion. 

The failures and triumph have always intrigued people, and they have relentlessly tried to discover the mechanism that makes a difference between victory and a loss. Although some find destiny to be playing a decisive role in this, others dissent with this. 

Those who propose that fate has an overwhelming influence on the outcomes of effort and endeavors, assert that this aspect makes everything fall in place and creates a synergy of resources in different manifestations, helping one to make use of everything at their disposal efficiently, whereas if one is not lucky, they will face debacle. 

This can be easily exemplified by citing the defeat faced by Napoleon in Russia who, despite having a huge army and all possible modern weapons at his disposal, failed to conquer Russian troops that were poorly armed not because of his inefficient planning or ineffective leadership, but because the time for him was not favorable. His huge formidable army faced severe winters that made their advance tenuous and instead took a toll on their army and killed thousands of its soldiers, ending the campaign in a disaster. 

Nevertheless,  this notion is no more than a superstition as per the critics. it is vehemently professesed, except a few coincidences, every result is significantly impacted by the amount of efforts invested by those pursuing goals, coupled with an unswerving resolve. These elements allow individuals to enthusiastically chase their goals and adopt appropriate strategies to overcome hurdles posed during the course of seeking success. 

Overall, I fail to completely subscribe to this statement since even though stars and fortune do have a role in deciding the consequence of an undertaking, these are not the only factors; one must also be prepared to strive hard and use their intellect. 

People working at higher levels in the companies should be paid more than the workers at lower levels. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 People working at higher levels in the companies should be paid more than the workers at lower levels. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Why to agree 

• Those in higher positions have more obligations that require profound involvement in the work

• They have to work longer sometimes 

• They carry the responsibility of their subordinates, and thus, face more stress. 

Why to disagree 

• Those working at lower levels form the plinth of the performance and so must be compensated in a similar manner 

• Cost of living affects everyone equally and those at lower levels same situation 

The conventional system leans in favor of compensating those in higher ranks in the organizations, better than those in the lower ones. This matter has fetched mixed reactions and needs a profound analysis.  

When it comes to attaining pay parity for personnel engaged at differing levels in the organizational hierarchy, a common perception emerges that those at senior positions deserve to receive higher compensation. This notion, in my view, needs a profound analysis. 

An army of people lending its absolute support to this arrangement feels that  high-ranking employees  tend to bear obligations that are much border in their scope, and carry far more relevance than their counterparts at junior levels, and need investment of longer hours to attain the output,making their positions more important, whereas those at lower rung at responsible for only the tasks that are confined to their set of duties specific to their occupation. This aspect makes the former deserving beneficiaries of better salaries.   

Similarly, undeniably, ones working at the supervisory and managerial levels have to brave the hardships of donning the mantle of taking ownership of performance of even those working under them and be answerable to their seniors, pushing them sometimes to go an extra mile to fill the void in output of the team, making them vulnerable to mental and physical stress. Thus, it is advisable to pay them better than their subordinate to compensate for their efforts. 

However, the skeptics protest against such differences, and profess despite their views lacking substance, that everyone today is bearing similar levels of stress at work and facing colossally high costs of living, making equivalent pay imperative. Nevertheless, they forget that those at higher levels are responsible for planning policies that steer the business than simply implementing them at lower levels. 

In hindsight, controversies aside, the traditional arrangement of defining compensation is worthy of being subscribed to completely since this differentiation provokes employees to strive harder and aim for climbing the organizational hierarchy.

Some people that having a set retirement age (e.g. 65 years) for everybody, regardless of occupation, is unfair. They believe that certain workers deserve to retire and receive a pension at an earlier age. Do you agree or disagree? Which type of workers do you think should benefit from an early retirement age

 Some people that having a set retirement age (e.g. 65 years) for everybody, regardless of occupation, is unfair. They believe that certain workers deserve to retire and receive a pension at an earlier age. Do you agree or disagree? Which type of workers do you think should benefit from an early retirement age

There is a profound over the age when one should be relieved of the professional duties. While there is a conventional arrangement that allows retirement at 65 years, there is a suggestion that there should be some flexibility and some, engaged in certain occupations be allowed to retire early.   

To start with, those supporting this proposal found their view on the belief that jobs requiring intensive physical labor and that present hazardous conditions, must enjoy the liberty to subscribe to such settings. For example, there are miners who work in challenging conditions or army personnel who risk their life should be relieved earlier since their lives are always at risk. It is a fact that beyond a certain age, the reflexes and the endurance tend to weaken, making people vulnerable to injuries and also ailments. This does not only expose the affected individuals to unsafe conditions but also has the potential to jeopardize the  safety of others. Thus, it is quite plausible to retire such professionals. 

This will help organizations save humongous money spent on reimbursing medical bills of workers and their families in case some were injured or perished on job, and also compensating clients for the loss. Apart from that, this would also help sustain efficiency operations since retiring certain aged staff would also replace with able-bodied individuals who are capable of bearing the stress of a daunting work environment. This method has been successfully tried in jobs like that of crane operators at shipyards that need physical and mental agility.   

In hindsight, this proposal can be easily subscribed to since it will not only help workers involved  in certain demanding jobs to spend their life happily after they become mentally and physically weaker but also assist businesses in conserving resources.  

Some people think that water is the most important natural resource, while others believe that other resources such as oil and gold are more important. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

 

Some people think that water is the most important natural resource, while others believe that other resources such as oil and gold are more important. Discuss both views and give your opinion. 

Water is important 

• It is the lifeline, a resource without which no life can exist on the planet. It douses thirst and also keeps people and animals healthy 

• Without water, the landscape of the planet would turn barren, making it hard for humans to grow their food

Why Gold and oil are important 

• They hold an economic value 

• Where the gold reflects prosperity 

• Gold has always been used a means of trading, even in modern times the value of currency partly depends on the gold stocks available with state 

• Oil drives modern economies and all related functions - Lack of oil can send the economy in a tizzy  

•  Oil serves as facilitator of every possible function today.

A tug of war has ensued when it comes to deciding what holds more relevance for society, water, or gold and oil. While some are inclined in favor of the former,  economists lay emphasis on abundance of the latter two.

A common perception  surfacing today values water more than other any other naturally occurring mineral, for it this substance that has helped life persist on the planet and in current times when its availability is becoming tenuous in many parts of the world, sustaining even the fundamental functions such as affording fresh drinking water is becoming an uphill task for the regimes. It is feared that if this condition endures, chaos will descend and social unrest will become a common sight, and countries could be seen going to war.  

Moreover, water underpins growing food an essential function that makes it possible to feed the growing population and also the livestock that indirectly affords mankind the much required nourishment in the form of cereals, fruits, vegetables,  meat and milk, to name a few. Above all, this gift of nature influences and regulates climate: its presence allows greenery to flourish, providing the surroundings with the required humidity and also inviting precipitation. 

Having said that, the other school of thought considers gold and oil to be more crucial in modern times since where gold defines the prosperity of a country and helps define the value of its currency, oil bolsters various functions ranging from producing energy to rendering transportation of man and material possible; thus, the dearth of these can precipitate into a crisis. 

In hindsight, the current discourse seems ludicrous and lacking in substance since each of these materials have their own significance. If one provides life, the others augment development and sustenance of essential economic endeavors. 

Nowadays many children have trouble paying attention in class or concentrating on their school work. Why is this happening? How can this problem be solved?

 Nowadays many children have trouble paying attention in class or concentrating on their school work. Why is this happening? How can this problem be solved?

Why do children find it hard to focus in class and school work 

• The amount of syllabus has increased tremendously that stipulates learning about more and more topics, leaving little time for brainstorming, clarifying the doubts and eventually maroon students on the plight 

• The objectives of teaching have changed, from explaining the concepts and assessing the abilities of students to just delivering the  content and letting learners struggle on their own

• Objectives of teaching have changed, it is no more a passion but just another profession. 

• Bigger class sizes that have a mix of all abilities - from slow learners to fast learners,  creating distraction  

• Continuous focus on studies and no free time or extracurricular activities to let students relax, causing distraction because of inertia 

• At home, engagement with technology is taking a toll on studies, especially the internet and social media 

• Lack of parental attention, with both spouses working or one professionally engaged and the other socially active is also a cause of the problem

•  

Solutions 

• Easing up the burden of of curriculum 

• Integration of extracurricular activities in the formal routine 

• Segregation of students as per their learning abilities could help 

• Smaller class sizes 

• Parents must also play a role in this: devote some time to their wards 

• Home assignments should encourage engagement with books rather than with the internet 

Young learners are found lacking in concentration at school and while negotiating tasks given in the class as a part of homework. This can be attributed to various causes, but it is possible to find remedies for this. 

The most prominent reason for lack of focus during classroom sessions is the ever expanding syllabus, making it necessary for both the faculty and pupils to cover a myriad  of topics within predefined deadlines. Consequently, brainstorming and detailed discussions have become a thing of the past, and students are today left on their own to comprehend the content and prepare themselves for examinations, causing disenchantment in the process.

To add to the woes, the current practice of encouraging youngsters to search for information for school work on the internet is exacerbating the problems. Whenever one browses online resources, they tend to go astray and start engaging with other activities that eventually makes it hard for them to bring their focus back. To corroborate, a study carried out by an eminent educationist Professor Harmeet Singh revealed that  most parents complained about their wards deviating from their main task of doing home assignments to playing games, watching videos, using social media and so on. 

There is a need to alter the approach to let learners concentrate back on their academic pursuits. Formal curriculum should be rationalized and bi-furcated into different parts to ease the burden. It would be quite prudent to let students choose the content to be studied. Moreover, engagement with books instead of the internet should be prioritized for home assignments. 

Overall, the stretched syllabus and linking of online resources with homework are the root cause for disillusionment among young learners, but streamlining the list of topics and promoting books can help solve this issue. 

The Internet contains a lot of Information, however, sometimes this information is inaccurate or wrong. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

The Internet contains a lot of Information, however, sometimes this information is inaccurate or wrong. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

The Internet is a means of finding any kind of information related to various fields. People have become so accustomed to searching on the web that they easily believe anything accessed on this domain. This has raised a concern among many that information being disseminated by this platform is fake. 

The internet is such an asset, the information available on the internet can be used for improving any hazardous situation. For example, the train and flight booking information available on the internet can be used for the bookings which earlier couldn’t be done without going to the station or without the help of an agent. The web can be used for getting the information related to jobs which is a boon for the job seekers as now they can easily get all the information regarding job vacancies while sitting in the comfort of their homes. The internet is of great advantage for people who cannot remember routes or addresses, the web is used for searching addresses of any popular organization, doctor, hospital, school, hotels and many other such places of common public use.

 

On the contrary, the internet is also creating such a turmoil in the society which is becoming difficult to control. There is a saying that “little knowledge is a dangerous thing”, the internet is the apt example of this saying. The doctors specially discourage the patients from using the internet for gathering information related to diseases. The people search the internet to find remedies to their medical conditions instead of visiting the doctor, which sometimes puts the patients in life threatening situations. Besides this, the hackers are using the internet to spread malicious and wrong information which has heightened the rate of cyber crime from the past many years.

 

However, I disagree that a lot of information available on the internet is inaccurate or wrong. I rather believe that the information available on the internet is beneficial and accurate to a great extent which makes the life of many people easy and comfortable. 

In their advertising, businesses nowadays usually emphasize that their products are new in some way. Why is this, do you think it is a positive or negative development?

 In their advertising, businesses nowadays usually emphasize that their products are new in some way. Why is this, do you think it is a positive or negative development? 

In concurrent times, renowned business owners immensely focus on marketing to convince people their product as being the latest launch. This trend is now being followed by numerous organizations globally. In subsequent paragraphs, I will elucidate the rationale behind this along with the demerits.  

Where on the one hand, a prominent school of thought propounds that this practice is a method of survival during the cut-throat competition era by ensuring that companies are able to exhaust their stocks of existing merchandise, minimizing chances of their dead stock and maximizing revenues and profits. Many also are interested in embracing this approach as they are not keen on investing sumptuously on new innovations. This assists them in keeping the costs down and yet maintain their visibility in the market. 

On the other  hand, those presenting fresh produce to their targeted audience do so to gain mileage over their competition. By highlighting some features as being path breaking, they are able to transfer the benefits to the consumers who, in turn, are able to  harness the advantages of latest introductions and enjoy the exploits of modern technology.  

A lobby of experts asserts that this is a unique way of fooling people easily. Each time, companies add something to a previous product or change the outlook to ensure that they remain in the market. Instead of finding a way of delivering a better product they deceive everyone. Mostly, they introduce merely an upgrade of the previous version, forcing many to opt for the new models, pushing buyers into  financial problems. To illustrate, many youngsters of Mexico are in debt because of their addiction to sports cars and every year automobile companies launch an advanced version with some minor improvements, sending young customers  into a buying spree and exposing them to extravagance.

Overall, I will conclude that although the technique of emphasizing has proved to be beneficial for businesses as they are achieving their goals successfully, deceiving consumers is not acceptable. Hence, I consider this as a negative development.

Some people think that climate change could have negative effect on business. Others think that climate change could create more business opportunities. Discuss both views and your own opinions.

 Some people think that climate change could have negative effect on business. Others think that climate change could create more business opportunities. Discuss both views and your own opinions.

In contemporary times, a drastic change in the climate in all regions of the world has been observed. This phenomenon has alarmed some experts who fear that this would fetch an umpteen number of disadvantages for businesses; however, the other lobby dissents and thinks otherwise. This essay intends to discuss both views.

​​To embark upon discussion, the change in weather conditions could have adverse effects on several businesses which could lead to enormous amounts of loss on the economic front. To exemplify, crops require specific climatic conditions in order to yield a rich harvest. Increase in temperature or water content in the atmosphere could result in harming the crops, affecting the overall agricultural productivity, and leading to financial loss to farmers. Moreover, this shift has caused several glaciers to melt due to notable rise in the temperatures, which has increased the sea levels to a great extent, exposing many coastal cities to a threat of submerging and endangering several businesses dwelling in those areas.

Nevertheless, there are a few who claim this process to be beneficial and propound that it would help several businesses to prosper. Due to change in environmental conditions, many companies would endeavour into innovating new products to address the transforming requirements; hence, creating several new job opportunities and rendering more profits. For instance, to deal with the deteriorating quality of air because of change in climatic conditions, a company started building large air purifiers which have been installed in many countries to decontaminate the air. This has fetched enormous amounts of revenues to the organization.

Overall, despite both views being justified, I personally side with the view that such change in weather would be more disastrous to businesses and will result in greater economic loss to the many.