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. 

Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

Are there any alternatives?

Can experimentation on animals be justified? 

Justified. Why? 

• The clinical trials conducted on animals has allowed to ensure that the products and procedures are safe for human consumption. 

• Many medicines and surgical processes perfected have helped save billions of lives   

• Humans being deemed as superior creatures cannot be used as subjects

• None,  the pharma companies, would want lawsuits on them 

• The creatures being used for tests are not exotic and are otherwise also killed in huge numbers every year as they  considered as pests 

or not. Yes? 

• Humans have not created animals but nature, so they do not have right to inflict on the poor beings  

ALternatives 

• Human tissue cloning has earned earned success and the new products can be tried on those 

Several animal activists are in favor of declaring clinical trials on animals as illegal by virtue of being cruel, but the scientific community upholds this practice and feels this is the only hope for many ailing in the current paradigm. The following paragraphs shall critically analyze the matter and explore the alternatives.

To begin with, those objecting to such undertakings assert that it is unethical and inhuman to subject poor beings who cannot voice their consent or dissent, to pain and suffering for the sake of mankind. Nature has created everyone equal, and thus, no one enjoys the privilege of causing harm to others, in order to develop and improve their own lifestyles while those involved in/undergoing painful clinical procedures are exposed to unbearable sufferings, distortions and agony. 

However, those vouching for these endeavors are good to point that the animals used in such experiments, such as monkey, rodents and guinea pig are not some exotic species that are nearing extinction, but are regarded as pests and a menace by farmers, store keepers, factory owners, and even municipalities and are either shot or poisoned in millions every year across the world. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in using these creatures for conducting tests. 

Similarly, currently, there is hardly any other reliable alternative to supersede this process even though tissue cloning is being developed, but it is a long and pain-staking procedure which may eons take to materialize. Meanwhile, life of humans cannot be jeopardized by trying medicine, products and routine on them, or affording them unproven formulations.

Overall, disputes aside, in my opinion conducting experiments on animals is completely acceptable until plausible alternatives are discovered since such undertakings have helped save millions of lives, which otherwise would be lost to preventable diseases, and continued wreaking havoc on mankind.  

Intro 1 - 

There is a tug of war going on between animal rights activists and the scientific community over the need to carry out clinical procedures on animals. While the former vehemently protest against this practice, the latter are in its favor. The following paragraphs shall discuss this matter critically and explore alternatives.

Intro 2- 

The debate surrounding testing on animals in the scientific domain is the most heated. On the one hand, an army of animal activists want this practice to be completely proscribed; on the other, the scientific community lends its support to this arrangement citing the reason that currently there are few options available to replace this.

Intro 3- 

In some countries owning a home rather than renting one is considered very important. Why might this be the case? Is this a positive or negative development?

In some countries owning a home rather than renting one is considered very important. Why might this be the case? Is this a positive or negative development?

Contemporary times have witnessed possessing a dwelling unit has become a vogue; it is deemed a better option than renting one. The following paragraphs shall discuss the causes fueling this propensity, and elucidate why it is a favorable phenomenon.

To begin with, a school of thought propounds that purchasing a house is prioritized since it gives unprecedented freedom to customize it as per typical requirements and desires without obtaining the approval of the owner. Also, one is free to buy expensive furniture, paintings and other decorative items without any hesitation. Similarly, this arrangement acts as a bulwark against fluctuating rents. Moreover, choosing neighbors and surroundings as per their personal choice is an added privilege.

Furthermore, personal residence is the best form of investment that lasts for a long duration and can be converted into money at any point of time. One can enhance their financial stability when they own their accommodation as it can act as a collateral security that can aid them in obtaining a loan, buying a new car and borrowing some money for their business.

Above all, one can also buttress themselves against financial uncertainties: they can stay protected in times of crises; they would not be forced to vacate the accommodation in case of loss of employment. This reason is often cited by a majority of homeowners as they assert that during volatile times such as pandemic of 2020, it was their owned residence that sheltered them from distressing consequences such as becoming homeless when they had lost their jobs due to closure of businesses.

To cap it all, owning a place of residence protects individuals from the thick and thin of unpredictable life besides offering unparalleled freedom from the moodswings of lessors. Thus, such evolution can be termed as favorable.

People sleep less than before in many countries. Why do people sleep less? What effect does it have on an individual and on society?

 People sleep less than before in many countries. Why do people sleep less? What effect does it have on an individual and on society?

Sleep deprivation has become common nowadays. It can be attributed to stress, depressive life and many more, which is impacting physical and mental well being of affected individuals, and influencing others around them. I would elucidate both the aspects in the following paragraphs. 

 

Most are staying awake longer than usual due to overwhelming professional or academic obligations that keep them tied to their work for extended hours, and sometimes, they carry it to their homes, forcing them to engage till wee hours, and consequently, shortening their sleep tenure. Similarly,  personal habits: smoking and consuming caffeine laced drinks such as Red Bull, and many more, are also major contributors to this phenomenon.   

 

To add insult to injury, many seem to have developed a penchant for engaging with technology for leisure: playing games on mobiles, computers and many hand gadgets; interacting with others on social media has become a common practice. This is being done, usually at the expense of sleep time, to compensate for the time lost while overworking for professional commitments; consequently, they remain awake and alert for a long time at night. 

 

These habits are impacting a majority adversely: many complain of lack of concentration, and feel drowsy throughout the day,  affecting productivity at work and studies. Moreover, this is making many vulnerable to diseases such as undue stress hypertension and depression; aging them faster, and so on. Additionally, soma end up feeling irritated, and lose temper on inconsequential issues, picking up fights with anyone around, as a result: road rage cases are an example of such behavior.

 

In conclusion, overwhelming professional and academic demands and indulgence with these technological gadgets are the chief reasons for lack of sleep, but the impact can varied: ranging from poor health to social interaction.  

Some people feel that equality between the genders has already been achieved while others feel there is considerable progress to be made. Discuss both views and give your own opinion

Some people feel that equality between the genders has already been achieved while others feel there is considerable progress to be made. Discuss both views and give your own opinion

Gender equality has always evoked a heated debate, as some believe that it has been achieved, but some believe that there is still considerable progress to be made. I would like to analyze both the views and share a plausible conclusion.

A school of thought advocates that males and females are treated at par: several countries have enforced comprehensive laws that guarantee meting out equal treatment to both sexes: women have the same rights that only men previously enjoyed, right to vote, education, doing business and  equal pay legislation. These legal measures provide a strong foundation for ensuring equal rights for all, regardless of gender. Consequently, women are touching new heights in every profession,  even in the challenging ones: military and other hazardous tasks. 

Moreover, today, top designations are now being allocated to women by virtue of them being appropriately educated and demonstrating leadership qualities, and leading from the front in diverse realms such as politics, business and even ruling the countries. Of late, various gargantuan businesses: Pepsi,  Pfizer, and so on, have them in top management positions. Similarly, countries in the Middle East also have allowed lucrative posts to be occupied by women.  

Nevertheless, despite legal measures, and barring a few societies, several parts of the world, especially the orthodox ones, are still to transform their thinking process to allow women some freedom and level playing field: letting them out of homes, affording them education and privileges as males. The conventional perception of them being responsible for only child rearing is waiting to be erased from human memory. 

To conclude, although there have been notable advancements in gender equality, the journey is far from over: this cannot be simply achieved on papers; the need is to reform societal approach to afford parity to both the sexes. 

The growth of online shopping will one day lead to all shops in towns and cities closing. Do you agree or disagree?

The growth of online shopping will one day lead to all shops in towns and cities closing. Do you agree or disagree?

Purchasing goods from websites is a new fad among people nowadays and the way it is penetrating every customer segment, the day is not far when shopping centres will be forced to close. However, this notion is countered by a sizable lobby that suggests such an event is not even a remote possibility due to the avid shoppers who will never shun this practice. 

Many speculate, the way purchasing from websites is gaining more and more traction, it seems that shopping centres will be a history soon, but the supporters of physical stores dissent on this issue, and suggest going shopping will endure regardless of the popularity of online alternatives.

Those who harbour the belief that e-portals will push shopping centres out of business profess that people are expected to become busier in future owing to their overwhelming professional and family engagements,  leaving them with little time to undertake a shopping trip. And, since they will have a variety of e-shopping sites at their disposal, offering them a surfeit of merchandise that can be delivered right at their doorstep, they will be tempted to shop online. Such a tendency will be ubiquitous, thereby reducing the number of visitors to markets.

Nevertheless, a school of thought does not support the former notion and asserts that assumptions will be assumptions, and no one can discount the dedicated/passionate shoppers for whom a trip to shopping districts and malls will continue to be a leisure trip, a chance to break the mundane, and spend some time rejoicing with their family members. 

Besides this, the tribe of fussy buyers who cannot buy before doing some window shopping and browsing through numerous alternatives by checking them physically, before finalising their choice will never disappear from the face of this planet. Such customers will help ensure the survival of physical shops and stores despite the rising popularity of internet driven buying.

Overall,  I strongly feel despite the strongest of the guesses that support the view of shops closing their businesses, the practice of undertaking shopping visits will continue unabated, and millions will continue enjoying it. Therefore, I do not concur with this statement. 

Life in the 21st century is better compared to the previous century. To what extant do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your own experience in not less than 250 words

Life in the 21st century is better compared to the previous century. To what extant do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your own experience in not less than 250 words.

Many believe that with the advancement of resources, standards of living have dramatically improved, placing life, in the current era,  that are leagues ahead of what one could experience in the twentieth century. I strongly concur with this notion and shall elucidate my stand in the upcoming paragraphs.

Constant technological evolution is the major driver behind the advancement of life. Today, it is  quite relaxed and comfortable as compared to past times. For instance, the invention of the computer is a boon: both for the businesses and employees; now with the help of this machine, work can be performed swiftly, more effectively and effortlessly. Now it is possible to carry out tasks faster without needing much human intervention, and also store and access data without needing investment of huge spaces. These factors have helped circumvent much drudgery, formerly a part of everyday professional life. Moreover, introduction of state-of-the-art facilities such as audio and video call, have aided in turning communication into an uncomplicated and affordable endeavor, the  benefit of  which is derived and exploited sufficiently by organizations and individuals.  

Additionally, the contemporary times afford ease of access to superior transport infrastructure like roads, railways, airways and waterways, and so on. Personal traveling and transit of goods with the help of modern means is less time consuming, and cost effective,  which has also helped promote export and import not only nationally but also internationally. Similarly, the present-day health sector has heralded notable triumphs. Advanced machinery is used to diagnose disease, aiding in detection of critical illness on time augmenting chances of appropriate treatment and recovery.  

To conclude, the current century, with the betterment of technology in several sectors has made life better in numerous ways, as compared to previous times, offering convenience and cost-effective solutions.

Because of the global economy, many goods including what we use as daily basics produced by other counties have to be transported for a long distance. To what extent do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Because of the global economy, many goods including what we use as daily basics produced by other counties have to be transported for a long distance. To what extent do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Several conservatives and environmentalists

are convinced that importing products utilized on an everyday basis from far-off regions in order to cultivate and bolster geopolitical ties can impact domestic economies unfavorably, and also contribute to environmental issues: global warming, while a few voice dissent.

This modern practice is bound to precipitate severe ramifications for the planet and its occupants. A majority of concurrent global trade heavily relies on conventional energy sources like diesel and other carbon based fuels used for transportation of raw materials, and finished commodities, over long distances, primary sources of pollution globally, and responsible for inducing unsurmountable damage to the ecosystem.

Moreover, importing basic day-to-day consumables from other countries could have devastating impact on the local manufacturers and businesses as outside players can manipulate regional markets by mass dumping their goods which would make it difficult for native competitors to sustain their operations, forcing them to shut down, leading to unemployment, and eventually affecting the economic capabilities of a state by slowly draining its wealth.

Having said that, advocates of the global economy hail it as a very favorable step towards world peace, resolving conflicts worldwide, and promulgating greater harmony among people belonging to different areas. In addition to this, it provides consumers with a wide range of consumables to choose from, thus providing them better alternatives and improving their standard of living. Furthermore, this would create a competitive atmosphere for local ventures to become more innovative and produce much superior merchandise.    

To cap it all, I opine even though there are certain detriments of this modern arrangement, the favors it is likely to bring around are more profound, and thus, exceed the former by miles. The shortcomings associated can be surmounted by espousing prudent policies and greener fuels.