Some people think that newspapers are the best way to learn about current events. However, others believe that they can learn news better through other media.

Some people think that newspapers are the best way to learn about current events. However, others believe that they can learn news better through other media.

Discuss both views and give your opinion.

There has been an eternal debate doing rounds to decide as to which medium of informing the masses about contemporary issues surrounding them. While a school of thought asserts that newspapers happen to be the most formidable means of obtaining information about the tropical happenings, others favour alternative sources.

On the one hand, there is tremendous following for the newspapers as this medium is hailed as a platform that delivers authentic information that is duly verified by a competent editorial team for its genuineness. Each detail is substantiated from reliable resources to confirm its validity, and only after a thorough brainstorming it is approved for reporting. Moreover, it has also been seen that editors act extremely responsibly and many a times tend to censor the details that are incendiary and have a potential to galvanize social discord and unrest. 

Similarly, this conventional mode is admired for its all-embracing detailing and analysis. The well-versed and committed journalists spend time in covering an event from all possible angles and sometimes even delve deeper to derive exhaustive facts about an occurrence, affording readers a chance to inform themselves comprehensively and also appreciate the gravity of matter more clearly.     

On the other hand, a lobby vehemently vouches for the other technology-fuel options such as television, internet and social media. Their opinion is founded on the virtue of speed that these mediums render. Undeniably, one cannot discount the instant updates these modern means can bring to a news hungry audience effortlessly and virtually free of cost.  

Overall, after assessing both sides of the coin I feel that, albeit the alternative mediums have swiftness and cost effectiveness to their advantage, newspapers, the conventional mode, shall always remain the most keenly followed way of enlightening oneself about current happenings. 

In many cases the development of a country is accompanied by pollution and environmental damage. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Can it be simply avoided if the country takes an environmentally friendly approach?

 In many cases the development of a country is accompanied by pollution and environmental damage. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Can it be simply avoided if the country takes an environmentally friendly approach?

Undeniably, the race for registering radical progress has resulted in catastrophic consequences: pollution and ecological damage. But, a reprieve is still not too far provided the focus is shifted to greener methods.

The environment is facing a paradox of progress in the form of colossal air pollution. Combustion of fossil fuels to produce energy to run factories – that are churning out goods to fuel economies - and vehicles - transporting humans and material to diverse locations for disparate purposes - has resulted in profuse spewing of pollutants, making air nearly unfit for breathing. Besides this, the attempt to render goods of luxury and comfort to society, is promoting discharge of industrial effluents in abundance in water bodies, damaging the marine ecology, as well as making water unfit for consumption.

Moreover, rapid spread of urbanization and industrial farming has resulted in reckless denuding of the planet, to make way for such venues and facilities, which is eventually setting enormous amounts of carbon dioxide free. This is giving rise to the serious problem of global warming which has the potential to seriously hamper the life sustaining ability of the planet. The atmosphere is becoming warmer and sea levels are rising, besides the climate becoming unpredictable.

Having said that, the situation can still be mitigated, and things can be salvaged provided the focus shifts from the conventional methods to the eco-friendly practices. The use of greener sources of energy instead of fossil fuels can help alleviate air pollution. Similarly, substituting exploitation of natural resources with recycling is being mulled by governments across the world as a way to put a halt to clearing of the green cover. These factors cumulatively, if applied prudently, hold great promises, and can help avert catastrophe.

Overall, undoubtedly the damage to the environment has been colossal, and rightly seems irreversible, but even so the planet can be helped to revert back to some extent by adopting sustainable methods and technology.

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?

Many pupils these days are facing a deficit in attention when it comes to attending classes in schools or doing school work. There are various reasons behind this problem. Further I will highlight the root causes and solutions of this complication.

The foundation to this issue has been laid down by the schools only by stretching the curriculum. Students are under immense pressure, by virtue of teachers attempting to wind up the whole curriculum to meet deadlines, regardless of the fact whether pupils are able to grasp it, or not. In this whole process, usually the former do not get time to take part in extracurricular activities, leading to disenchantment from studies.

Additionally, introduction of the internet to the pupils at an early stage has not helped the things but exacerbated the problem. Availability of technology has made their work easier, encouraging them to indulge in copying the content from websites and reproducing it in their work without even caring to comprehend the topic. On top of, owing to work pressure, faculty also seldom examines the quality of work, making students go astray and  lose their focus.

 

To surmount this challenge, several experts suggest that school management should contemplate stemming the major issue and reform the system to help learners. Teachers should have an empathetic approach towards the learners and make adjustments in their strategies such as making classrooms more interactive. Proper brainstorming should be done regularly. This will certainly help pupils to gain back the lost focus and let them invest themselves completely in their academic work with devotion.  

In hindsight, even though the  source of this bizarre situation is quite plausible, overcoming it is not an uphill task. A little change in policy and approach of teachers can fetch positive outcomes.

Nowadays, it is more convenient and easier for people to travel to other countries. Is this a positive or negative development?

Nowadays, it is more convenient and easier for people to travel to other countries. Is this a positive or negative development?

In recent times, cross-border traveling for has become easier than ever before. Even though this is helping them acquire knowledge and discover new things and ideas, it does have some downsides.

Nowadays, as undertaking journeys has become cheaper and more comfortable, it is allowing people to see and experience disparate cultures more closely. Consequently, they are able to inform themselves about other cultures; expose them to heterogenous lifestyles, clothing, languages and food habits; and convince them that distinctiveness is perfectly normal, thereby making them more tolerant. Apart from that, now everyone can explore every corner of world, regardless of their economic backgrounds, and expand their list of destinations for leisure travel.  

On the flip side, this phenomenon also has some pitfalls. The main problem is that it is bad for environment since most of those going to other countries tend to fly, it is causing a rise in air pollution and also resulting in ecological destruction, by virtue of deforestation being accelerated due to the need for  bigger and more airports. 

Also, travellers may introduce new diseases to a place. For example, visitors to a new place often go to places where tribals live, making the latter vulnerable to viruses and bacteria, affecting their lives consequently. This can be corroborated by citing the  example of recent unrestricted proliferation of Corona Virus that citizens of one country  carried along with them and transmitted it to the hosts, causing pandemic as a result. 

In short, even though this evolution also has unfavorable consequences for the environment and host populace, the ease of traveling has certainly enabled more and more people to visit various places and learn about destination locations. Thus, this is a beneficial trend though precautions must resorted to in order to evade disastrous outcomes. 

Many think life will be better in future when robots will do most of the work done by humans. Do you agree or disagree?

 Many think life will be better in future when robots will do most of the work done by humans. Do you agree or disagree?

Before attempting to write an intro, plan what to write  

Look at the tone and also the scope of the essay 

Do you agree or disagree? Either side (clear stand in conclusion) 

With what (will) 

Will life be better with the advent of robots, or not? 

Yes?  

• Life will become convenient as people will be spared of efforts they invest to do their work

• Things will speed up and people will save time 

• Errors will be eliminated and precision will be achieved 

• It will save lives and ensure safety 

• New horizons will open up 

NO? 

• Unemployment will result 

• Loss of skills is another hazard: people will not be able to work in absence of power  

• Encourage sedentary lifestyle 

• This will create class conflicts and social discord, giving rise to crime 

There is a common perception that the advent of robots will make life effortless. Although this notion has fetched support from various quarters, there is some cynicism.

To start with, the optimism about life becoming uncomplicated is supported by the benefits automation will bring around. This will spare humans of the efforts they have to invest in negotiating various tedious and laborious tasks at work and at home, leaving them with ample time to spend on other more essential areas and relax too. For example, artificial intelligence could drive cars and vehicles for them, and let them travel in comfort without worrying about mishaps and getting tired of facing traffic as drivers. 

Besides this, these modern introductions could be of great assistance in reducing in affording safety. These machines would be able to work in hazardous conditions capable of jeopardizing human safety. To exemplify, in the recent pandemic, many healthcare workers were exposed to infections and in fact thousands lost their lives while treating infected patients, but with the availability of these devices in coming years, health care givers could be guaranteed safety as they will not need to go close to those affected individuals. 

However, even though it is undeniable that this invention is bound to make things easy for mankind, it will also result in unemployment, especially at the skilled and semi-skilled levels. This equipment will supersede human labor, precipitating into heightened joblessness, and thus leading to poverty, by making it hard for people to earn a square meal a day. 

Overall, although there are going to be some complications due to robots, life is bound to become easier if these machines are introduced. It is recommended by several experts that a prudent  approach can help overcome pitfalls.

Directors of large companies often receive much bigger salary increases than ordinary workers. Employers' organizations say that in the global market this is necessary to attract the best management talent. What are your views?

 Directors of large companies often receive much bigger salary increases than ordinary workers. Employers' organizations say that in the global market this is necessary to attract the best management talent. What are your views?

In contemporary times, several businesses have started following the practice of greater hikes to those working at director level, than common personnel in the pretext that this arrangement is essential to lure high fliers at global level. In my opinion this prospective needs to be critically analyzed 

At the outset, the Rationale driving this policy  suggest that professionals engaging in directorial endeavors subject themselves to  the daunting task of not only managing the whole organization efficiently but also deriving tangible outcomes from their functions, whereas a worker employed at a lower level is only responsible for a limited scope of duties. This difference makes the former the deserving candidates for steeper pay raises 

Moreover it is hard to deny that individuals working at such levels are equipped with extensive seasoning about dealing with diverse situations, formulating and implementing appropriate policies to surmount challenges and capitalize on opportunities, something that can only be effectively handled by a highly experienced professional. On top of that, they also bring along an expansive network of their global connections that helps enrich the experience of the organization that allows them to explore new markets and also grow their business footprint. Therefore they must be remunerated accordingly.

Having said that, there is some skepticism about this approach even though it is not so well-founded, that this disparity might cause disgruntlement among those employed at lower levels since they too have to bear extreme stress, and are responsible for implementation of policies and strategies. This could precipitate into lower productivity and higher employee turnover. 

In hindsight, disputes aside, I vehemently opine that this method of engaging experienced seasoned professionals for assignments at director level is completely justified by virtue of their experience and contribution to the organization.

Some people regard animals as the source of food or clothes. Others think that they should be treated like pets. Do you agree or disagree?

 Some people regard animals as the source of food or clothes. Others think that they should be treated like pets. Do you agree or disagree? 

Modern thought favors treating animals as companions rather than a resource of nourishment and clothing, but there are voices of dissent on this notion. I shall be analyzing this statement and the contra view, and conclude whether this is an agreeable notion or not.  

Many treat the traditional opinion about animals being a part of nourishment and clothing provision with contempt and feel that these creatures  should be meted out fair treatment and be considered as companions. I, nevertheless, fail to subscribe to this notion.  

To start with, there is a strong opinion against this notion - which is also justified to a certain extent. It cites the age-old practice, where humans have interacted with their co-inhabitants of the planet by rendering them shelter and, in exchange, using them for feeding the human population, in the form of dairy products such milk, butter and cheese, to name a few; and meat and eggs. Had these beings not there, it is believed that the human race would not have survived - it debuted as hunter gatherers who started populating various parts of the planet - and would have perished and disappeared.     

Having said that, the lobby of animal activists puts its weight behind the proposal  that animals should not be abused for personal objectives of mankind. They profess that creatures are also creations of nature, and thus  man does not enjoy ownership over them. Therefore, no one has the right to exploit these creatures for various purposes, or inflict pain and death upon them. These beings deserve to be treated as companions and family members and rendered due care. Moreover, in times of extensive development of technology that spans across the field of food production - enabling artificial synthesis - there is little rationale left in using these creatures.  

Conclusion: we have to agree or disagree (no middle path) 

Overall, even though the reasons quoted in support of this statement hold true to a certain extent, I fail to concur with it since if humans started abandoning use of animals as source of nutrition and clothes, many would perish and chaos would descend. 

Nowadays we can see definite signs of surplus production in almost every industry sector, and this is leading to environmental damage. What are some possible solutions to this situation?

 Nowadays we can see definite signs of surplus production in almost every industry sector, and this is leading to environmental damage. What are some possible solutions to this situation?

Excess production in manufacturing sector has become the order of the day it may a seem to be sign of economic prosperity to the economists, the environmentalists are least amused, and are instead worried about the ecological disaster this phenomenon is causing they stress on finding workable ways out to get rid of this pressing problem.

The most prominent suggestion comes from within the manufacturing sector where experts recommend a closer coordination between marketing, manufacturing and research and development departments, besides rationalizing distribution channels. The evil of over production stems from over-reporting of sales by marketing departments. If this practice could be stopped, excessive production would automatically be halted. Thus preventing indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources and emissions from fuel used in production process.

Many, also go to the extent of stalling or research and development activities-carried out to in fuse innovation in the existing products, and discontinuing production until the existing stocks are not consumed completely. This would not only keep pollution a bay for some days but also make the society realize the importance of producing only that much which can serve the purpose of humanity.

On top of that, a school of thought goes to the extent of introducing statutory regulation and reforming the habits of the consumers. It is suggested that the governments across the world should resort imposing heavy penalties and punishments for the manufactures who tend to produce more than what they can sell. This should be complimented by convincing the users not to abandon there equipment or dispose of others goods and instead reuse them.

Hence, surplus manufacturing is surely an end-product of consumption oriented society, but this is damaging the health of the planet. Therefore, remedial steps are the need of the hour and should be implemented without delay and without compromise.

The best way to understand other cultures is to work for a multinational organization? Do you agree or disagree

 The best way to understand other cultures is to work for a multinational organization? Do you agree or disagree

Do you agree or disagree

Yes the best way to learn about foreign cultures is to engage professionally with an MNC 

• People come in touch with others from disparate backgrounds and learn about their ways of life 

• They know about festivals and other occasions through holidays and other celebrations 

• When these people travel to offices in other locations for their work, they interact with their colleagues 

No

• People take up jobs to just fulfill their professional aspirations and earn money, and seldom bring culture into the picture 

• They rarely socialize with others and maintain an arm’s distance 

• Most are dealing with their overseas counterparts through online resources and there is hardly any shoptalk or exchange of personal views  

 

As per a common perception, working in a multinational organization can help one familiarize themselves with disparate ways of life from across the world. In my view, this notion needs to be critically analyzed. 

Those  aligning themselves with this perception find support in the assumption that the environment in such organizations afford opportunities to interact with colleagues from overseas locations and enrich the knowledge of workers in terms of language, attitude, festivals and customs, to name a few. It has been seen that those employed in such establishments are exposed to their counterparts through regular associations being effected with the help of video conferencing, or traveling to  offices in other locations. Such contacts help inform people about various ways of life prevalent  in the world.

Having said that, the former view has certain flaws. It is hard to discount the fact that the majority are inclined to keep their professional and personal lives apart, and rarely dilute them. Their primary objective of joining any organization, including a transnational corporate, is to earn a livelihood to support themselves and their kin, and in these establishments they get better paid, and knowing about other cultures is neither on their priority list nor they are afforded such chances due to their hectic work schedule.

 

Similarly, professional engagements with the multinational can at best render global visibility to professionals but enlighten them about customs and beliefs populating this world since due to a great difference in aspirations most are wary and rarely have trust on each other, impeding cultural exchanges between them. 

Overall, even though this notion might hold some relevance, it can hardly be concurred with since those employed in companies with global presence have tight schedules and rarely have faith in their overseas colleagues. 

Global warming is one of the biggest threats humans face in the 21st Century and sea levels are continuing to rise at alarming rates. What problems are associated with this and what are some possible solutions.

 

Global warming is one of the biggest threats humans face in the 21st Century and sea levels are continuing to rise at alarming rates.

What problems are associated with this and what are some possible solutions.

Global warming and rise in sea levels have emerged as a major threat to mankind in the modern era. It has become an alarming situation for many politicians and environmentalists thereby, making many experts scramble for the associated consequences  and the plausible solutions for this pressing challenge.

Undoubtedly, global climate change has already had an observable effect on the environment, it is believed by the environmental experts that there are still other occurrences which might take place simultaneously like loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves to name a few. Consequently, affecting the ecological balance adversely. In the long run, there is a great possibility that the environment may become incompatible for life, causing extinction of not only flora and fauna but humans too.

There are several ways to overcome this challenge and reduce its effect on the planet, one of the prominent solutions suggested by experts involve the contribution of government and individuals – it is to resort to the eco friendly measures like  switching to the non- polluting energy resources such as wind and solar energy to generate electricity, instead of using fossil fuels.

Moreover, switching to sustainable transportation and infrastructure can also act a credible preventive measure to surmount global warming. Promoting the use of public transportation, carpooling, and also electric modes transit can help cut down emission of carbon dioxide. Besides this, reducing the use of air conditioners and heating systems in domestic and commercial buildings can help in conquering this major perilous phenomenon.

In hindsight, I personally feel that although the environment is on the edge of total collapse, a lot can be salvaged and impending danger can be averted by adopting appropriate measures at all levels: individual and social.

In many countries, the legal driving age is 18 years old. Some people believe it is the right age to learn how to drive a car, whereas others say that the minimum age should be 25. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

 

In many countries, the legal driving age is 18 years old. Some people believe it is the right age to learn how to drive a car, whereas others say that the minimum age should be 25. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

 

 

Whether legal driving age should continue to be 18, or should it be raised to 25 is a profoundly debated matter today. Both the partisan factions cite justified reasons in support of their views.

Rendering permission to freshly turned adults to drive seems to be quite a viable practice. This view is based on the rationale that when young individuals attaining the age of 18 become liable to pay taxes, exercise their franchise by casting their votes, and also legally join employment, why not afford the privilege of driving four wheelers. Also, as grown-ups, they become obligated to their families, and having permission to drive can prove to be an asset: as they can share the family obligations and contribute by helping negotiate certain outdoor chores like shopping, or travel to work, without needing assistance of their elders.

Nevertheless, the  cynical lobby is up in arms against such an arrangement even though their fears are unfounded. They propound that those have just attained adulthood may be able to handle any responsibility but when it comes to driving,  it is a different realm altogether: something that needs a great sense of empathy towards other road users; ability to suppress temptation and adventurous spirits to respond to challenges, which is not the forte of those just turning 18. Thus,  individuals should only sit at the steering wheel when they are mature enough, at 25, an age scientifically proven to be quite suitable for such a task.    

Overall, I strongly feel that even though suggestion of raising the driving age may seem to be lucrative, it is not at all practical in the current scenario at least. Young adults deserve to be extended the right of being able to drive on their own at 18.

Some teachers think that a program of international exchange visits would benefit all teenage school students. Do you think the benefits of such a program would outweigh any disadvantages?

 Some teachers think that a program of international exchange visits would benefit all teenage school students. Do you think the benefits of such a program would outweigh any disadvantages?

 

Formal tuition is introducing innovative ways to develop and improve the quality of knowledge imparted and one such step involves tie-ups with their counterparts across the world facilitating international school exchange initiatives. This essay shall elucidate the pros and cons of this system.

To embark upon discussion, there is a lobby that strongly vouches for this arrangement as it paves way for umpteen merits: the learners get an opportunity to comprehend the world beyond their socio-political boundaries and develop a global perspective, broadening their horizons as a result, helping them forge relationships with learners hailing from disparate cultures. This can go a long way in preparing young minds to appreciate diversity and brush aside their tribal attitudes, a pivotal parameter for survival in a highly globalized world. It is firmly perceived that such programs can help  establish a society that will learn to live in harmony, regardless of being populated with distinct aspirations.  

Having said that, some are skeptical of such a policy, albiet their views not being well-founded. There are concerns about the exorbitant expenses being incurred when learners from a country travel to another, the burden of which must be borne by parents, often exposing them to unwarranted financial burden. Some also express fears that by virtue of being easily influenced pupils in their teens might not be able to readjust back into their routines after returning back to their home countries. This can have a profound impact on their academic performance. 

To cap it all, controversies aside, even though there are some alleged pitfalls of such exchange endeavors, the favors fetched are far more than the former. Therefore, it can  be safely asserted that the latter outshine the former by miles, and thus, must be promoted. 

Some people believe that teaching children at home is best for a child's development while others think that it is important for children to go to school. Discuss the advantages of both methods and give your own opinion.

 Some people believe that teaching children at home is best for a child's development while others think that it is important for children to go to school. 

Discuss the advantages of both methods and give your own opinion.

Why do some people feel that Home tutoring is a better option?

1. It offers a relaxed environment to the learners. They are away from stressful environment of the schools where they must abide by different norms strictly 

2. Safety is another concern, which is duly addressed at home 

3. Chances of children going astray due to disruptive classmates are eliminated 

4. Unprecedented convenience of timings 

5. Liberty of studying at one’s own pace  

Why schooling is important?

1. Schooling means disciplining the child so that one adopts a rational and organized approach towards learning 

2. Formal environment is necessary to foster a sense of responsibility

3. Faculty is equipped with knowhow to inculcate knowledge and also address the queries and doubts

4. Helps develop broader perspectives about approaches of gaining knowledge

5. Upgraded knowledge can only be delivered in the school environment 

Education is regarded as the cornerstone of overall development of children. To ensure desirable outcomes in this endeavor, many have embarked upon an exploration which has revealed two prominent methods: home tutoring and formal tuition. There is a sizable support for the former and the latter alternative options.

Home schooling has existed over the centuries and is preferred even today by those who loathe the schooling system. Such an arrangement offers  unprecedented convenience and freedom to young individuals like they can get education in an environment - where all the focus is on them - that is familiar to them, enabling them to invest all their energy into a single task, learning, instead of worrying about the tense and alien environment of a classroom.

Furthermore, youngsters can study at their own pace rather than trying to keep up with others, making them feel at home with the critical task of learning. Not only this, they enjoy the freedom of being able to focus on one subject at a time as opposed to struggling with multiple areas in formal settings.  

However, the lobby vouching for youngsters attending formal tuition asserts that these institutions have a crucial role to play in instilling a sense of discipline and a practical approach towards life among young learners. It is undeniable that the formal environment and the trained faculty coax pupils into learning, perfecting and also testing their abilities in a controlled manner. Similarly, the interaction learners develop with their teachers and classmates paves way for fostering learning strategies that actually work. 

Overall, after assessing both points of views, I feel that both opinions are justified, but the latter arrangement holds more substance for the current era when youngsters are bound to engage in professional environments as members of teams.

Light pollution (excessive light during night time) is a form of pollution that distresses many people, especially in modern cities. What are the causes of light pollution, and what solutions can you suggest for governments and businesses to take?

 Light pollution (excessive light during night time) is a form of pollution that distresses many people, especially in modern cities. What are the causes of light pollution, and what solutions can you suggest for governments and businesses to take?

Nowadays, it has been seen that the usage of surfeit illumination is witnessing an alarming increment, thereby affecting the lifestyle of every individual. In the forthcoming paragraphs, I will elucidate the causes behind this, and the plausible solutions.

To start with, a school of thought believes that flooding the areas with more than required lighting is the primary cause of light pollution, and urban areas are the witnesses of such incidence where street light equipment is placed within the shorter distance of each other. Also, exorbitant use of skyward beams used in late night parties such as clubs and other occasions are focusing on unnecessary areas rather than being used to highlight required surfaces, exacerbating the problem. 

Moreover, excessive use of high beams by the vehicles is also leading to this menace. It is commonly complained by several urban motorists that those driving cars, motorcycles and buses often use such mode of illuminating their path, but in the process end up sending light upwards. Similarly, billboards of advertisements in night time also light up the horizons of cities, making it hard to observe clear night skies. 

However, there are some possible solutions to mitigate this menace. The unnecessary usage of lights on streets by designing the concept of proper distance coverage per light can help greatly. Along with that, timing restrictions should be imposed on party organizers and use the advertisement hoardings. Similarly, dissuading the drivers from pointing their headlights towards skies, can also help bring the situation under control to a great extent. 

Overall, I personally believe that governments should enact the stringent strictures to curb the irrelevant use of lightning on roads, streets, parties and advertisement hoardings can alleviate this problem to a great extent. 

Tobacco and alcohol are drugs that cause addition and health problems. Should they be made illegal? Or should all drugs be legalized?

 Tobacco and alcohol are drugs that cause addition and health problems. Should they be made illegal? Or should all drugs be legalized?

There has been a real tricky and confusing debate going on about a complicated matter whether to declare alcohol and tobacco products as drugs and disallow their use, or declare all drugs as lawful. 

The lobby of health experts in favor of prohibiting tobacco products and intoxicants suggests that such substances carry a great potential of making people their users sick by exposing them to various diseases and ailments like respiratory disorders such as asthma, heart ailments, lever disorders and even terminal diseases like cancer. They further purpose that even if one does not perish, they lead miserable lives due to poor health conditions. Such addicts often turn out to be unproductive components of society who do not only drain public money but also affect the overall index of the society. Thus prohibition of such material seems justified. 

Nevertheless, a lobby voices its dissent on this issue by asserting that these materials do not deserve prohibition since they have been part of social rituals since time unknown. It is the humans who invite trouble by abusing these substances. Moreover, restricting both of these would only promote illegal manufacturing and trading as people will try to source these materials through unlawful channels.   

But, there is a unanimous opinion about not allowing people access to narcotics since even a little quantity of such intoxicants can make their users completely and permanently dependent on these, rehabilitation becomes almost impossible. Additionally, these substances impede physiological functions and severely hampers  mental and physical wellbeing of ones using such stuff. 

Overall, controversies apart, I strongly feel that prohibiting alcohol and tobacco will only push people into procuring these materials through legal ways, but not dissuade  them from consuming these; thus these should remain legal, but other drugs should remain prohibited. 

Many jobs at around the house are done manually, but could have been done by machines instead. What are the advantages or disadvantages of this? Give your opinion and include relevant examples. What are the advantages or disadvantages of this?

 Many jobs at around the house are done manually, but could have been done by machines instead. What are the advantages or disadvantages of this? Give your opinion and include relevant examples.

What are the advantages or disadvantages of this? 

In contemporary times, despite the availability of automated equipment to facilitate household chores, certain tasks are negotiated with hands. Although this has been hailed as a phenomenon that is populated by numerous benefits, there are some drawbacks too. 

To begin with, this approach is exposing people to umpteen advantages, the most prominent being that one is able to stay physically active and away from the depressing thoughts. By virtue of needing to indulge in carrying out domestic work, people are able to perform a low intensity workout, helping burn calories and stay fit. Many following this practice report that they never need to visit a gym to regulate their weight and their metabolism also stays fine-tuned.

Besides this, individuals can also evade depression that usually results due to the indolent lifestyles and living alone. It has  been observed in several elite countries in the western hemisphere that the most leading cloistered lifestyles tend to do their work using their own efforts, and feel happier, since it helps them to stay away from feeling abandoned.

However, there is surely a worth considering shortfall of this habit, as the skeptical view suggests. People are condemned to devote themselves manually to perform the routine chores at homes, something that is quite taxing in the times when one returns back from professional engagements, exhausted and drained of energy. At that time, taking up yet another struggle seems to be quite dispiriting. Many also complain that they are forced to dedicate their whole weekends to these errands that bring little productivity and keep them tied to their homes.  

Overall, disputes  aside, the complaints about doing household work with manual efforts may disappoint some, nonetheless the benefits such practice affords are innumerable and the failings can be overcome with judicious approach.

Most companies are developing cars which are able to fly in order to reduce traffic congestion. Do you think this flying car approach is effective to reduce traffic congestion? What other measures do you think to reduce traffic congestion?

Most companies are developing cars which are able to fly in order to reduce traffic congestion. Do you think this flying car approach is effective to reduce traffic congestion? What other measures do you  think to reduce traffic congestion?

 

Yes? Why justify  

Assumption/ postulation/ hypothesis   

• Those supporting this concept assume that when vehicles will be able to become airborne,  they would avoid snarls and it would also reduce the traffic density 

• Cars would also not need roads to drive since they would be take to the skies from the homes and land at destination directly 

No? Why justify 

• This is impractical when it comes to resolving since traffic problems: such machines would need a lot of space to take off: it is impossible to render them space in populated urban locales   

• Traffic congestion will shift from ground to the air, and also present a hazard to birds 

• They will prohibitively expensive for common people to afford 

What other measures do you  think to reduce traffic congestion? 

•  Developing and Promoting public commute 

• Better bus networks 

• Developing fast train network  

• Encouraging people to use bicycles

• Car pooling  

• Better traffic management 

• Construct more bridges and roads 

Introduction 1

In an era, when traffic jams are becoming ubiquitous, many have come up with an inventive idea of introducing cars that can fly. Even though this proposal is hailed as appealing by some, it majorly lacks substance, making it imperative to discover plausible solutions.  

Introduction 2

Even though flying cars have been proposed as an excellent solution to surmount the challenges posed by thickening traffic, it fails to convince the skeptics who favor finding more plausible remedies. 

Those  in favor of this innovative solution assume that such automobiles would greatly help in thinning the traffic density, by virtue of personal four wheelers becoming airborne. This would make roads virtually useless because those traveling from one place to another would take off from the point of origin of their journey and directly arrive at the destination. 

Having said that, such a notion, despite being intriguing, is outrightly impractical since if this solution were implemented, it would cause a great chaos. Creating space to provide runways to such innovative flying machines will become a major worry for urban planning authorities since big cities that are plagued by traffic snarls, tend to use every inch of available area to create some facility for  the urbanites. Moreover, these vehicles are likely to remain a pipe dream because of prohibitively high prices of owning and maintaining them.

Resolving the serious challenge posed by thick vehicular traffic is only possible by adopting prudent steps  rather than squandering valuable financial resources on useless inventions. There is a need to develop and promote mass transit systems: improved bus operation networks and high speed trains, and simultaneously make possessing a car exorbitantly expensive by imposing taxes on purchase, road use, parking and fuel. This policy will dissuade a majority from driving their own vehicles,taking the pressure off the roads.

Overall, one may wonder what cars with wings could do to relieve people from their sufferings, but it has nothing to do with resolving the issue of traffic jams since judicious planning and measures are needed to alleviate this urban malady.