A majority feels that voting should be considered compulsory. Do you agree or disagree with this notion?

 A majority feels that voting should be considered compulsory. Do you agree or disagree with this notion?

Some people believe that exercising franchise is extremely essential and should be turned into an obligation for all. I agree with this statement and shall support my stand with relevant reasons followed by a relevant conclusion.

 In a democratic country,  governments are chosen by people by casting their votes. Thus, every citizen, eighteen or above, should vote because it is a right bestowed upon them, and  this will bring more transparency in the democratic process as the regimes chosen will be on the basis of popularity enjoyed by the elected politicians rather than relying on simple but deceptive concept of choosing the one on the basis of highest number of votes received; they might be unpopular among the majority of inhabitants. This will help mitigate chances of social unrest and discord later from those who chose to against the selected policy makers, and thereby, reducing public expenditure otherwise incurred on curtailing civil unrest.   

Furthermore, this will also assist in choosing the most competent leaders to govern the country; they, by virtue of enjoying wider outreach, will be able to judge the moods of their comprehensive constituents, and work accordingly for larger public good  rather than just  focusing on only some sections, a case generally observed where the a major portion of the electorate abstains from exercising their rights, and are abandoned by those governing, in favor of the minority that elected them.  Likewise, this will also alleviate the expenditure incurred on campaigns run to persuade citizens to step out and participate in the election process.   

In hindsight, it is quite evident that one must partake in the process of electing governing bodies and lawmakers to ensure that society is bereft of violence later, and those entering the parliament work for the public good at large.  

Some people think that everyone should look after their health as a duty to the society they live in, rather than their own personal benefit. Do you agree or disagree?

 Some people think that everyone should look after their health as a duty to the society they live in, rather than their own personal benefit. Do you agree or disagree?

Do you agree or disagree?

• Some people think that everyone should look after their health as a duty to the society they live in, rather than their own personal benefit. 

Should personal well being be considered more of a social obligation than personal motive? 

Yes. Why health should be social duty than personal advantage?   

• The health of one influences everyone around: pandemic is a live example, and jeopardize safety of the society 

• If the fall sick,  they will consume invaluable public resources and cost society dearly 

• They will not be able to contribute to society 

  No. Why? 

• If health of a person is robust, they can lead an independent life without sufferings and misery 

• They can also pursue their dreams and ambitions, and earn success 

Intro 

It is commonly argued that one should look after their well being as a part of their social obligation and not just as their personal asset. In my view, this matter needs a profound analysis.

Intro 2

Health of an individual and welfare of society are intricately entwined (closely related). This has persuaded many to suggest that one should take care of their wellbeing more of duty towards society than their personal comfort. Following paragraphs shall critically analyse the relevance of this notion.

Intro 3

The great public discourse of contemporary times is aligned with the issue whether robust health of an individual is more of an obligation towards society than personal welfare, or not. Following paragraphs shall delve deeper into this matter and share a plausible conclusion.

To start with, those considering personal well being as social commitment feel that people living in a community impact each other: both positively and negatively, and in the current paradigm when social interaction has become paramount,  it is important to protect each other from infectious diseases. For instance, the recent pandemic has proven the significance of this perception. It was a personal initiative taken by people at their own level as a part of their responsibility that helped stem/stop/halt proliferation/spread of coronavirus. 

Moreover, undeniably sick individuals tend to drain public resources by requiring an elaborate healthcare framework that includes establishment of hospitals for diagnosing and treating diseases; training medical professionals; and compensating healthcare practitioners at various levels for dispensing medical interventions. It has been observed that health budgets, across the world, take away a major chunk of invaluable public money. Besides, experts suggest that every citizen should strive to contribute economic productivity and not consume resources like falling ill.

However, the other school of thought considers physical and mental well being as an advantage for oneself rather than caring any social relevance since this allows individuals to lead an independent and satisfying life where they can pursue the dreams and ambitions without having to rely on others or medications and interact with family and friends.

Overall, even though a healthy mind and body must benefit individuals personally, it has a greater relevance for society and the nation as a gregarious creature and is influenced by those around in terms of health and happiness.

Politicians are more responsible for the protection of the environment than individuals. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Politicians are more responsible for the protection of the environment than individuals. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In contemporary times, a school of thought believes that lawmakers are more answerable for the safety of nature than common people, while others do not think so. In the following paragraphs I will discuss both perspectives.

To begin with, elected representatives have the jurisdiction over the land and have all the rights to take strict action against those harming the environment and can pass laws to ensure this. The guidelines meant for prevention of ecological degradation are followed by everyone as no one wants to face penalties and punishment. Also, they can provide people with knowledge about environmentally friendly practices, so that the latter follow measures enthusiastically. On top of that, they also have a clear view of the approaching problems and also know-how about the required remedies suitable for countering the issues facing the planet since they have expert teams with them to suggest them best solutions. 

However, citizens should also be responsible for mitigating the problem as they are the ones creating the mess and problems. If they act responsibly, the issues related to environmental degradation will be reduced. For instance, eliminating plastic and overuse of their vehicles will help stop littering of plastic and also bring down emissions caused by fossil fuel. It is also their requirement that is setting the whole system of creating pollution into the moment. Thus, if they do not waste things by overshopping,  there will be no adverse effect on nature because factories will not exploit natural resources and also cause deforestation.  

To conclude, in my opinion, the regime should be the one to take the onus for ensuring safety of the environment as they have the power and resources to create legal statutes, and everyone will follow their guidelines without reluctance.   

Many today feel that attention spans are becoming shorter due to the prevalence of social media. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 Many today feel that attention spans are becoming shorter due to the prevalence of social media. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

• Many today feel that attention spans are becoming shorter due to the prevalence of social media. 

Is the reducing duration of focus due to engagement with social media? 

Agree. Why? Justify 

• The rich mix of audio and visual media and  abundance of material is addictive and tends to lure users, taking them away from their tasks. 

• The short tenure videos tend to keep people glued for only  sometime: this becomes  a habit and people find it hard to pay attention to their work in other walks of life 

• The algorithms used by social media present targeted content, which tends to lure people away from other work 

• The frequent pop-ups develop a habit of looking the other way

Disagree. Why? Justify   

• Lack of attention is personal trait and not fueled by social media 

It is a common perception that the shrinking duration of focus is the impact of social media. This notion courts controversy as some challenge its validity. 

Those  supporting this statement propose that social media is the primary source of the declining periods of focus on anything owing to the addictive content that is loaded/ laden with a rich mix of graphics and sound, and tends to lure the users who find it equally exciting because of their academic and professional schedules. Moreover, websites supporting social communication track the browsing habits of individuals and present pop-ups to complement  their interests. This practice is designed to persuade people to immediately access content and ignore other tasks.

Similarly, this propensity is being bolstered by short duration videos, brief messages, and single picture content being loaded on platforms such as youtube, twitter, instagram, and telegram, to name a few. When one accesses such presentations, they gradually become habitual of paying attention only for a while, and moving to the next thereafter. To corroborate, a study by psychologists supports this development; it suggests that social media sites prepare short span content to stretch engagement. Consequently, ignorant users embrace the habit of giving a cursory look and moving on since boredom sets in quickly. 

Nevertheless, those unconvinced with this evolution affecting focus duration suggest being unable to pay attention for long is an innate trait, or propelled by intention to negotiate multiple tasks. These habits existed even in the times when social networking sites were not there, and modern technology is a mere distraction. 

Overall, even though this perception is augmented (supported) by concrete reasons, one cannot ignore the natural instincts and proclivity to one not being able to focus for long. Thus, I partially subscribe to this statement.

In contemporary times,  for longer durations has become a matter of concern, and many attribute this to the advent of social media, but this notion is challenged by others. The following paragraphs shall analyze this matter critically and share a logical conclusion.

Introduction 2:

Is the shrinking duration of focus an outcome of influence of social media, or not, is a matter that is profoundly debated since some accept it, others reject it.

Introduction 3:

Nowadays, more people are choosing to socialize online rather than face to face. Is it a positive or negative development?

Nowadays, more people are choosing to socialize online rather than face to face. Is it a positive or negative development?

 

In concurrent times, the vast majority of people believe that social media is an emergent mode of communication. This phenomenon has been eulogized as favorable evolution, while others think it causes distraction and term it as detrimental.

To start with, an army of people believes that the internet binds people together across the globe to share their thoughts freely and make connections without any explicit cost such as traveling expenses, membership fees and so on . Moreover, it would not be possible for businesses to maximize their audience without using social media as a tool of marketing and also getting feedback to work on its fragility. On top of that, it is commonly noticed that last year 80% of people across the world were able to find employment through social media networking rather than offline mode of channel.

However, there are downsides of this tendency as many end up spending a massive number of hours sitting in front of screens causing mental health problems and also lead to reduction in communication skills. Furthermore, algorithms used by social media websites such as Facebook and Instagram are designed in order to keep users scrolling which leads to huge anxiety among people who are addicted to checking their screens for notifications every few minutes. Thus, these cause huge distractions from valuable and critical pursuits such as education. For instance, In China, most adults in their 20s and even 30s feel socially isolated as they never leave their houses and are glued to their screens.

 

To conclude, there are abundant benefits and drawbacks of this newly developing idea of socializing through the internet but this essay firmly believes that it is a positive trend as it encourages people to reach within reach and let businesses to grow boundlessly.

Living in a country where you have to speak a foreign language can cause serious social problems, as well as practical problems. Do you agree or disagree?

Living in a country where you have to speak a foreign language can cause serious social problems, as well as practical problems. Do you agree or disagree?

Surviving in an alien environment without knowledge of local language can pose severe hurdles in various paradigms: 

·         Knowing about local customs and ways of life can become a difficult job; thus, never allowing migrants to effectively integrate with surroundings 

·         Youngsters find it harder to settle down since they are unable to mingle with their native peers and often are subjected to slur 

·         Finding work can become an extremely arduous job 

·         Surviving in alien surroundings can be an onerous task: finding directions, knowing about places 

No issues arise today   

·         Virtual interpreters can help a great deal in overcoming linguistic barriers. 

·         Systems like GPS and google maps can help people find directions

·         Migrants go well prepared to handle such issues and try to overcome               the barriers using their intellect with enthusiasm

A chance to reside in another country, although is an exciting opportunity, it can result in a fiasco, creating social and  practical issue, if one moves to a location where natives use an alien tongue, as many suggest. However, to others, such a scenario seems to be a remote possibility.

Those who fear that alien surroundings where languages endemic to those surroundings are used can precipitate into unwarranted circumstances for migrants: they will find it hard to adapt to the local host surroundings. Furthermore, one may have to struggle to find employment in alien locations if they are unfamiliar with the native dialects: the local employers and businesses always prefer those who can interact with their surroundings and customers without any barriers including linguistic.  

Having said that, others challenge the former opinion vehemently, they feel that such assumption holds true for those who lack  knowledge of the language spoken locally in the destination society, whereas, if one has even a fair level of understanding of the host tongue can conveniently make inroads into the native society. They can easily forge friendships and establish amicable relationships with the locals. This can pave way for their successful integration with the natives.   

On top of that, such apprehensions seem to be lacking substance in an era when one has virtual interpretation and translation facilities available at their disposal, making communication effortless between cultures and helping eliminate misunderstandings. What one needs a positive attitude towards facing and surmounting challenges surfacing while immigrating to a foreign location.

Overall, I fail to completely subscribe to this notion and feel that only those are forced to grapple with the difficulties, who lack knowledge of the host language, whereas once having proficiency and language competence can surmount every imaginable challenge.