Recently, teenagers have not been following rules and their parents’ advice. Is this good or bad?

 Recently, teenagers have not been following rules and their parents’ advice. Is this good or bad?

Good 

• Helping them carve out an independent personality 

• Learning to make decisions on their own, turning mature quickly

• Develop a broader perspective  

Bad 

• They stand a greater chance of going astray since they are in the stage of metamorphosis, neither they are children, nor they are grown-ups and could be easily swayed by temptations, often leading them to wrong directions 

• They miss the chance of inheriting moral and ethic values of their parents 

• Lack discipline and grow up adults who fail to comply with the social norms 

Today,  few adolescents are inclined to following diktats, or paying heed to the counsel of their parents. While some are eulogizing this propensity, the drawbacks associated with it are  quite profound. 

A feeling of emancipation is propounded as descending upon growing minds that are about to step into adulthood affording them a ripe opportunity of taking the matters concerning their life and future in their future, and making decisions - be it academic, personal or professional - as per their aspirations and expectations that sans external intervention of even their families. The rewards assumed to be fetched include fostering broader mindsets and  responsible personalities capable of addressing matters concerning them on their own. 

Nevertheless, all the veneration conferred for such conduct is dwarfed once the ground reality is meticulously delved into. Exercising reluctance by teenaged individuals manifests itself as a recipe for disaster; they are likely to become susceptible to going astray and engaging in unlawful endeavors. To corroborate, various cities world over such as New York, London, and so on, have witnessed a spurt in juvenile crimes such as shoplifting, mugging, and vandalism and a majority have been attributed to adolescent individuals. 

Moreover, those overlooking suggestions of mothers and fathers, are bound to lose opportunities of gaining moral and righteous values such as honesty and civility, and grow up as uncultured adults. Adolescence is the most delicate  phase where the intellect is evolving to attain maturity, and thus, needs guidance for enabling a smooth transition into adulthood; if missed, can result in behavior distortion that can endure throughout the life.     

Overall, disputes aside, this alarming propensity reflecting among teens is fraught with numerous perils that can jeopardize the future of youngsters. Therefore, parents must act judiciously to persuade their teenage wards to pay heed to their advisory.    

Some say that due to heavy traffic governments need to build more roads in metropolitan cities, while others argue this isn’t the right solution, and might cause more problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons and examples.

Some say that due to heavy traffic governments need to build more roads in metropolitan cities, while others argue this isn’t the right solution, and might cause more problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons and examples.

The significantly rising urban populace across has precipitated a phenomenal increment in congestion on urban roads. To surmount this challenge, some experts suggest establishing more road networks; however, the skepticals feel this cannot resolve the problem, but add to woes.

Expanding the road network in the urbanized areas os being proposed as a viable solution: it would help in alleviating the density of vehicles on individual roadways: the traffic would be diverted to the new roadways. Similarly, the expansion of roads would create more space for cars and other means of transportation. This would enable the authorities to ensure an easy flow of various vehicles.

Having said that, those cynical of this proposal feel that constructing new roadways would prove to be impractical in long run because the way the number of cars, trucks and buses, etc. is rising, the newly constructed passages would soon become clogged and the situation would worsen. Furthermore, the construction of new roadways would attract builders and developers who would either develop new residential, business and industrial complexes in adjoining areas. This would render the exercise of enhancing the roadway networks useless. 

Moreover, constructing new road networks would not only rob cities of valuable land which could instead be used for developing other more vital facilities for the inhabitants of urban locales but also cause an ecological disaster – by large scale felling of trees. Expansion of roadways would also mean allocating more critical financial resources to this exercise, resulting in wasteful public expenditure.

To recap, I feel that expanding road networks is not a panacea: this would instead cause a huge ecological disaster, and an unnecessary wastage of public money.  The need of the hour is to discover sustainable remedies rather than looking for expensive solutions that are provisional in nature.  

Some feel that students should not have to take standardized tests in school. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some feel that students should not have to take standardized tests in school. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Agree. Yes. why? 

• It is very much possible that one might not be good at one topic but excel in the other, but examiners overlook this fact, resulting in unfair  assessment 

• Resulting in jealousy 

• Otherwise Intelligent students lagging behind

• This will free them from the stress and also let them score as per their abilities 

Disagree? Why 

• It will be chaotic and amount to wastage of resources and time

• It will be hard to judge the potential as per certain predefined parameters  

• Will lead to deterioration of academic outcomes and competitive environment will go missing 

• Will fuel escapist attitude among learners 

• Will not let overall development take place 

Some commentators proposed that pupils at school should be spared from appearing for exams based on a universal formula. In my view, this statement needs to be critically analyzed. 

Those  lobbying for such an arrangement  profess that this will allow school authorities to plan exam curriculum specific to the abilities of individual learners, benefitting the latter. It has been observed that when the whole class is evaluated on certain uniform parameters, many tend to underperform despite being more intelligent than their classmates, simply because the questions included in the assessment were from the topics that were not their forte. This might discourage them, and even force many to abandon  study altogether, whereas making them write tests that gauge their abilities in their strength areas will persuade them to invest themselves devotedly and excel academically, turning education into more meaningful for them. 

Nevertheless, the critics of the suggestion feel that applying this policy will prove to be a recipe for disaster as chaos will result when it comes to preparing question papers. School authorities will have a tough time evaluating the capabilities of every learner, and their focus will shift from fostering scholastic qualities to simply helping them pass examinations, defeating the prime objective of formal tuition.

Similarly,  this will result in devolution of academic curriculum and outcomes: it is likely that everyone will opt for the content that they find uncomplicated and unchallenging, depriving them of not only useful knowledge but also of the opportunities to develop exploratory skills that could help them surmount hurdles and challenges, leaving them bereft of wisdom. 

In hindsight, I fail to concur with this statement completely; such a strategy will do more harm than good and defeat the very purpose of education: polishing the overall personalities of youngsters.  

 

In light of the current socio-economic situation of the world, do you think this is the right time for wildlife preservation? If yes, what are the ways and means you suggest for this?

 In light of the current socio-economic situation of the world, do you think this is the right time for wildlife preservation? If yes, what are the ways and means you suggest for this?

Rapidly  rising population coupled with the push for development have made environmentalists to suggest that it is high time that something was done to prevent wild flora and fauna from being lost forever. Failing this opportunity would do an irreversible damage. They also offer certain credible remedies to this impending threat.

The suggestion of taking timely action for the conservation of wildlife holds great substance. In the contemporary times, a major thrust for development is being experienced in almost every sphere of life, be it farming, industry, and infrastructure, which is making it mandatory to bring more and more land under human occupation, resulting in deforestation. If steps to preserve forests and wild beings are not taken in earnest, wild areas and their inhabitants will become part of history and encyclopedias. 

Moreover, swiftly expanding populace of the planet is bound to push the governments across the world to promote reckless exploitation of natural resources, on which even wild animals and plants rely. This has raised an alarm about the grim(dark) future of the wildlife. Overlooking the need to set limits to abuse of naturally occuring minerals will soon deprive the poor wild beings of their food and habitat, wiping them out permanently. 

Nevertheless, some simple and systematic steps can help avert the disaster. Earmarking geographically important areas for the wild flora and fauna, and strictly prohibiting any kind of human intervention in those locations will not only help preserve pristine areas but also engender(cause) recovery in the number of wild creatures. 

Overall, undeniably mankind enjoys the privilege of exploring all possible venues to improve the quality of life, but even so they must not rob others of their life. Hence, meticulous planning should be done in a haste(hurry) to evade extinction of wildlife right away.  

Many people argue that restaurants should be required to disclose the nutritional information of the dishes they serve. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

 Many people argue that restaurants should be required to disclose the nutritional information of the dishes they serve.  Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

• Many people argue that restaurants should be required to disclose the nutritional information of the dishes they serve.  

Advantage 

• Customers will be able to decide how much to consume as per their body proportions 

• They will be able avoid food that has ingredients that can cause them allergic reactions or affect their health adversely 

Disadvantage 

• This could creating misplaced notions about food consumptions habits and lead people to only calculate calories instead of consuming food 

• The food could become expensive since restaurants would need to carry out research and also take more time to prepare since the measured will have to be accurate for each preparation. 

It is proposed by many that eateries should mention the nutritional value of each delicacy they serve. While this practice carries certain benefits, it remains to be seen whether these outsrip detriments.

On the effulgent side, consumers will be able to assess the quantities of various ingredients being ingested with each serving, and decide upon portions to eat as per specific calorie requirements. Those conscious about their weight, girth of waist and overall health, could enjoy their favorite cuisines without harboring qualms about jeopardizing their physical appearance and well-being by surrendering to temptation to gratify their taste buds.  

Similarly, another conspicuous reward of this policy is providing an effective safeguard to those susceptible to food allergies; it will become easier for one to assess the condiments and  substances used in preparation of delicacies and  circumvent having nourishment that can  cause adverse reactions. This will particularly assist those having sensitivity to soy, fish, peanuts, and  citrus and acidic content since these have a potential to cause skin rashes and also respiration disorders. 

On the obsidian side, the only prominent downside of this policy is forgoing culinary innovation and surprises; everything used in preparing dishes will be made public beforehand, leaving little for those dining to explore the texture and flavor. Similarly, this arrangement might make eating out expensive since restaurants will need to research ingredients and list them on the menu,  thinning the crowds of visitors as only the elite will be able to afford restaurant food. 

In hindsight, although there are some downsides of this proposal, considering the favorable impact it is bound to have on the public health at large, it will be quite appropriate to suggest application of this norm as a salient feature of food services afforded by every restaurant and food joint. 

Nowadays many people are trying to earn more and more to get rich. What are the advantages and disadvantages of being rich?

 Nowadays many people are trying to earn more and more to get rich. What are the advantages and disadvantages of being rich?   

    

Benefits - upsides -pros 

• One can afford a comfortable life to self and their families 

• One can lay all the luxuries at the disposal of their kin 

• One can plan for future well 

• One can also prepare for emergencies

• Visibility in society and one enjoys a clout even in government 

Detriment 

• Stressful 

• One is susceptible to crimes like robberies, kidnapping for ransom

• Tax raids 

• One is engaged in an eternal race to sustain their status 

• They become victims of disdain / criticism also since they might be inflicted of depression due to this   

• One becomes arrogant  

• One becomes greedy and starts chasing affluence 

Wealth has always enticed humans, making them crave to get the biggest bite of the apple of Adam; everyone is prepared to step out of their comfort zones to attain prosperity.  However, riches never arrive alone, for they bring along favors and detriments as companions, making it imperative to weigh both.    

On the effulgent side, deep pockets afford a feeling of self-sufficiency as it becomes possible to lay every imaginable facility and amenity at the disposal of family and self, one does not have to struggle to make both ends meet. Similarly, prosperity also affords a lavish lifestyle, letting one enjoy the exploits of their financial abilities procuring swanky cars, luxurious mansions, going on expensive and exotic vacations, something that others can only imagine in their dreams. 

Similarly, the wealthy are emancipated of worries about dealing with exigencies of disparate variety such as medical or other, by virtue of having enough savings by their side. In a similar manner, their tomorrow is as assured as today as they can invest into quality education of their offspring, aiding the latter in carving a bright  future, and also securing twilight years by putting money into secure investments. 

However, the thorny bushes also greet the elite in abundance since vulnerability to the criminals for extortions, ransoms, tax complications - often unleashed on them by insidious taxation laws - can predispose them to sleepless nights and inflict them with afflictions such as depression in extreme cases. Additionally, pressure to sustain the status is overwhelming, making chasing an endless mirage  imperative. 

Overall, despite fortune yielding desirable outcomes, one must be prepared to taste the sour fruit too lying embedded deep in the box. Thus, it is extremely essential to practice judiciousness suggested in annals, to enjoy riches and surmount shortcomings efficiently.     

Shopping habits depend more on your age group than anything else. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 

Shopping habits depend more on your age group than anything else. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Why age defines theapproach towards shopping? 

·   A conventional belief that age is the driving factor that makes people embrace distinct shopping attitudes: young people go for fashionable clothes, new gadgets, while the people in middle-aged and  old-aged group and tend to focus on the needs of their families and budgets

·       The shopping forays of youngsters are  fueled by peers, public icons and are frequent, whereas that of older people is need-driven and occasional 

What other factors are more relevant 

·         The wealth: there is a clear demarcation between the affluent - passion driven or a hobby, the middle income  and low-income groups a means to fulfill the requirements,  and the  impoverished - an endeavor to fulfill basic needs. 

·         Availability of resources and circumstances is also influencing buying practices 

·         The attitude of being a spendthrift, or prudent spender it is rather an innate skill 

·         In contemporary times, people are adopting buying patterns that are in vogue.

·         With the technology developing and companies releasing upgrades regularly, people are embracing consumerist attitudes - use and throw, regardless of their age and economic background. 

·         Conventional and dynamic attitudes 

A question that never fails to intrigue even the highly acknowledged human behaviorists is, what is the motivation behind buying decisions of most consumers: is it the age or other factors. While some feel this propensity is fueled by age, others assert, it  stems from several attributes. 

If  one were to rely on the conventional belief that shopping patterns evolve with age, they would encounter the assumptions that the priorities, choice, frequency of visits to shopping centers, the intentions to possess something, and so on, alter greatly as one grows older. For instance, someone in their teens and early 20s are likely to be swayed by  peer pressure, the prevalent fashion, availability of time and the propensity to emulate public icons, to name a few, whereas those beyond these age groups remain unmoved by the former factors.

However, undeniably, one makes a decision to buy, or undertake a trip to a shopping district on the basis of their financial condition: the affluent have penchant to procure expensive commodities to satisfy their whims and fancies, while those hailing from middle and lower income groups tend to purchase occasionally and that also mostly to fulfill their necessities without upsetting their budgets. 

Similarly, availability of resources such as online, and circumstances - especially similar to the currently prevalent pandemic crisis - also have the potential to impact shopping behaviors, and persuade people to resort to a certain practice. To  exemplify, in the last 2 years since the outbreak of Convid majority of buyers, regardless of age,  have switched to e-portals like Amazon to meet all their needs.

Overall, even though age does have some effect on the propensity of shoppers, financial ability and presence of facilities along with the situation enjoy a more profound control over the inclination to shop.

Important historical objects in museums should be returned to their country of origin. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Important historical objects in museums should be returned to their country of origin. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Agree. Why? 

• Repatriation is justified since the things belonging to a civilization should remain with them as their legacy 

• This will act as a gesture of friendship and acceptance of mistakes made in the past

• When countries that own these rightfully, they will be able to boost their tourism  

Disagree. Why?  

• Most artifacts lying in museums belong to poor countries who may not have money to protect those remnants

• These objects should be made available for access to the widest possible audience which is only possible in their current locations. 

• Geographical boundaries have altered and  it will hard to decide that to which side of the borders these belong to

• Some objects might be damaged while transporting and lost forever  

Some suggest historical objects should be in the possession of society that owns them, while others believe that it is not the right thing to do. The following paragraphs  shall analyze the practicability of this suggestion and also the dissenting view. 

There is a profound controversy making rounds about the repatriation of  artifacts to societies they are endemic to. Since the attitudes to this opinion are ambivalent, a critical analysis is required to decide on this matter. 

Those vouching for homecoming of objects produced in the past to their native societies believe that it is a warranted demand: the communities whose predecessors created these are the ones who deserve to have this legacy in their possession. Most of such things were stolen, and illegally smuggled out during the imperial era, and now as the world order has changed,  the old mistakes must be undone and the objects given back to their rightful owners. For instance, the  Kohinoor diamond that decorates the royal crown of Britain actually belongs to India, and it is the latter that has a justified claim on it. 

However, there is rampant skepticism about this issue; it is felt that most of the ancient objects lying in museums across the world are in a dilapidated condition and are vulnerable to permanent damage and even loss in transit. Therefore, these should not be moved and instead retained wherever they are. 

Similarly, even though the proposal seems quite valid, it is suspected that if these remnants are handed over to societies that own them, they might not be able to maintain them. Most countries that assert their ownership are poor - erstwhile third-world countries in Asia and Africa, face an acute dearth of resources, financial and expertise, and might fail to protect and restore them.

Overall, disputes aside, the perspectives of both sides carry weight, so the old objects that are in a position to be moved safely should be transferred to countries that own them, and others should be allowed to remain where they are.