Many companies now use artificial intelligence to make hiring decisions. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Many companies now use artificial intelligence to make hiring decisions. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? 

Benefits 

• Time efficient 
• Cuts down on the time required to arrange for interviews, this can also be activated at a short notice 
• Mitigates traveling times required for interviewers and interviewees 
• Allow quick hiring 
•  Money efficient 
• Saves money of both the employers and the applicants, otherwise spent on arranging things and traveling to the venue 
• Lesser workload for administration 
• Candidates can appear for interviews in a relaxed environment 
• May help overcome bias 
• Can create records and prevent repetitive tasks 
• Make a better match of requirements and qualifications 

Drawbacks 

• There is great likelihood of qualified candidates being rejected
• Judging body language and facial expression is not possible for machines 
• Cannot judge emotional intelligence and resourcefulness of applicants 
• Lack human touch 
• Technical glitches and data theft 

Although the advent of automation has made choosing the correct candidate for jobs convenient, there are some drawbacks of this system which cannot be overlooked. Therefore, it is imperative to evaluate whether the pros of this system exceed its cons.

Undeniably,  the self-driven system of talent acquisition has helped make things uncomplicated for recruiters as they are spared of the daunting tasks of planning interviews, arranging resources and venues, and creating a synchronization between different departments to allow a smooth flow of events. This up-to-date medium can perform all functions single-handedly without needing a special space for evaluating job applicants.  

Nevertheless, despite this state-of-the art mechanism offering unprecedented convenience, its utility is extremely limited to selecting people for jobs that are straightforward; it is likely to misjudge the depth of experience of aspirants by virtue of operating on the basis of certain algorithms. To corroborate, surgeons and pilots can only be assessed on the basis of their successful surgeries and flying hours respectively with negligible errors and flaws.

Moreover, this medium is incapable of accurately examining soft and interpersonal skills because even the most advanced systems lack emotional intelligence, and thus, can never evaluate ability to communicate effectively, mental resilience, and persuasive acumen, the critical traits of capable professionals today. Several large hotel chains had to embrace the traditional system of interviewing prospective workers after the AI-assisted recruitment system failed to hire qualified people. These aspects assertively highlight that rewards offered by automated recruiting systems are scanty, while there are detriments galore.  

In hindsight, notwithstanding the benefits  like the ease of operations, the AI-driven hiring process is severely restricted to selecting employees for simple tasks, by virtue of its inability to determine critical traits of job applicants; thus it should be used restrictively.  

Many people believe that big business in addition to generating profits should be involved in and responsible for the social life of the community. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Many people believe that big business in addition to generating profits should be involved in and responsible for the social life of the community. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Yes,

• This approach will make their customers trust them which directly profits them in business.
• All businesses use resources whether it is people, or natural resources, infrastructure and fuels etc. should work on the sustainable approach to save the environment.
• Education, well-being, work life balance approach will encourage businesses to give their employees stress free zones for workers to work efficiently.

Many people argue that businesses should not only focus on generating profits but also they should be responsible for the social well-being and bring sustainability to save the environment. This essay will discuss both the views and come to a plausible conclusion.

To commence with, it is a significant responsibility of the large businesses to also focus on the communities well-being where they are working and operating. Almost every business uses the natural resources for production, public infrastructure, transport and work force around them, and they should give them back. For example, several organizations such as Tata in India, support initiatives in education and health care systems for not only their workers but also for those residing in communities around their factories across Indian cities. 

Moreover, by virtue of spoiling the environment, prosperous commercial entities must take the onus of improving the surroundings and to help create sustainable surroundings. For instance, many businesses have adopted a green approach by initiating tree plantation drives, recycling industrial waste, and cleaning the water bodies and locales to alleviate the impact of their activities. This can help them build and reinforce their reputation and engender client trust. 

However, some believe expecting large organizations to involve themselves in social activities is unjustified. Their view is founded on the fact that these large businesses are already paying taxes: income, profit, environment and social security, among others, and contribute to the government and community initiatives. Likewise, they are also providing employment to many and supporting them. Thus, such demands are unwarranted.   

To conclude, even though large businesses are already contributing to the society by paying taxes, I believe their responsibility is beyond profits, they should also participate in community wellness and promote sustainable environmental approach.

“Failure is proof that the desire was not strong enough", To what extend do you agree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer?

“Failure is proof that the desire was not strong enough", To what extend do you agree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer? 

It is often argued that the inability to accomplish goals is a reflection of lack of strong resolve. I strongly disagree with this notion, as success is influenced by several factors beyond desires. 

The majority of people tend to equate setbacks with the amount of effort a person puts into a particular pursuit. There is a common belief that if  one is resolute to attain something, they will rarely fail. For instance, it has often been observed in schools and at the workplace, a successful person is always perceived as being the one obsessed with goals, and is prepared to go an extra mile to overcome objectives, but the ones, despite investing equal efforts, fail to achieve positive outcomes due to lack of drive. Such pre-set notions, even if misplaced,  reinforce the belief that those failing, are lagging the determination to win. 

However, although the former view might hold some substance,  it is not valid in most cases;  there are several factors which influence the outcomes: triumph or loss. In reality, desires might be one aspect influencing accomplishments, but largely circumstances play a determinant role. It has often been  observed that many worthy of success struggle to find it because of absence of resources, timing, financial constraints and various other similar obstacles which contribute towards one being able to realize their ambition, or falling short of goals.  

In conclusion, I believe that there are several factors which decide success, or lack of it,  apart from the yearning to lodge victory. There can be numerous aspects that underpin the outcomes of endeavors, and thus, it is unfair to state that lack of desire causes one to miss the rewards of efforts: the success. 

Moreover, sometimes in a highly competitive world, failure can be attributed to luck. For example, many students preparing for competitive exams such as UPSC face a lot of rejection before they meet success simply because the questions they encounter might not be within their means to respond to perfectly, but at others they easily solve the problems presented in the question papers.  

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

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

Undoubtedly, the internet is regarded as a powerful source of imparting humongous information, but also blamed for serving misleading inputs. I will critically analyze this notion and share a plausible conclusion in upcoming paragraphs.

Many  argue that content published online, by virtue of absence of  stringent rules and regulations to review and control the quality of what is being presented, is not reliable as anyone can create their channels on social media and post whatever they want, regardless whether they have the expertise or not, resulting in users being wrongly informed. To corroborate, recently a video went viral on social media for treating the skin disorder melasma and blemishes, with 1 million views on it. Many complained of itching, rashes and extreme redness over their face after applying that home remedy. Even though the video was removed from all the portals, it ended up causing extreme trouble. 

Nevertheless, those quashing the allegations argue that reliable data is presented on the websites of governments, universities, and healthcare establishments, to name a few, but most of those browsing intend log on to any random portal in search of something not asking them about their details, and also allow them free access, leading them to sites that have been designed to deceive users. For example, Ieltsonline, a website where millions of students prepare for the English exam and attempt the mock tests, simply requires some personal details, but most avoid furnishing those and choose to opt for portals allowing them to stay anonymous, and are misguided in the process. 

To conclude, I fail to concur with this perception since although the online platform is plagued by presence of inauthentic material, it is minuscule in comparison to verified details, and it is carelessness of users that causes them troubles. 

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

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

Some believe that policymakers should be more concerned towards the protection and conservation of the ecology, while others argue that citizens should also don the mantle. I partially agree with this idea, as although the former plays a major role in negotiating this pressing task, it cannot be achieved  without the support of the latter. 

Many believe that law makers have been elected, and vested with powers to formulate  policies to protect the planet, and render hospitable surroundings to the populace, and thus, it is their obligation to sustain livable conditions. Moreover, they enjoy jurisdiction and the resources to support such long term initiatives, something out of bounds for common people. They can deploy laws to regulate activities and functions of businesses and households that can disrupt ecological balance. To corroborate, stringent emissions norms have been successfully used by regimes across the world that have led to decline in release of pollutants from the industry and domestic sector.

However, governments alone cannot be made to bear this burden, citizens must also play their part; they are the ultimate root cause behind the deterioration of the environment. Hence, it becomes their responsibility to act prudently to undo the harm they have done to the planet. In addition, if they choose to take ownership of their surroundings and act prudently: conduct cleanliness and tree plantation drives, and so forth, in their residential areas; and create awareness while inspiring others through their actions, the upcoming generation will incorporate sustainable ways of life as a ritual, nipping the evil its bud.  

In conclusion, despite the state boasting of power to frame policies, in my perspective erecting safeguards to buttress the ecological vitality is a joint responsibility and must be borne by everyone, regardless of whether ruling or being ruled. 

Crime is a problem all over the world. Some believe that crime prevention will make no difference, others disagree. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Crime is a problem all over the world. Some believe that crime prevention will make no difference, others disagree. Discuss both views and give your opinion. 

Illegal endeavors have always remained a major concern globally, and some see  little hope in measures meant to halt these, while others are quite optimistic in these preventive policies. This essay will discuss both notions profoundly, and conclude with my opinion. 

Some social behaviorists believe that deterrents aimed at eradicating unlawful undertaking are bound to fail. They argue that, despite the presence of laws and policies, infringements continue to rise with each passing day, for these stem from social and psychological factors that cannot be addressed only by making stringent laws. Unless social and economic disparities are diluted, it is going to be impossible to prevent perpetrators from resorting to deviant ways.  

On the other hand, another section of society argues that a strong legal framework, including stringent punitive provision, acts as a powerful tool to dissuade antisocial undertakings, discouraging individuals from engaging in instances of breaking laws, out of the fear of punishment. When preventative methods, like  increased surveillance, are clearly defined and consistently enforced, potential offenders are more likely to think twice before committing illegal acts: none are keen to be taken away from active life, or be slapped with a capital punishment, often awarded in extreme cases. To corroborate, the UAE follows a zero tolerance policy for thwarting unlawful activities, and awards strictest penalties; consequently, this country has the lowest rate of crimes.    

In conclusion, while some believe that criminal activities will continue to plague society in spite of steps taken to curtail these, I strongly support the opposing view because there have been several instances, wherein tools used to mitigate incidence of crime have proven their worth: these instill a sense of fear of consequences among potential offenders,  and contribute to the smooth functioning of society. 

Some parents buy their children a large number of toys to play with. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a large number of toys? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Some parents buy their children a large number of toys to play with. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a large number of toys? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

In the contemporary era, parents tend to purchase a large number of toys for their children to keep them engaged and busy. This essay will discuss the merits and demerits of this notion.

To begin with, parents buying plenty of toys for their children because of their busy lifestyles carries a perceived benefit: these playing gadgets compensate for the absence of the elders during the day, due to their hectic work schedules, keeping the latter busy and engaged, and not feeling abandoned. While this may help the child temporarily escape the boredom, it cannot replace the emotional support and attention required from parents.

Furthermore, although toys can play an important role in the overall development of youngsters, having plenty of them can spoil them. When tender minds are surrounded by surfeit playthings, they tend to become less appreciative and more demanding, which can later become a behavioural pattern. In addition, this can lead to isolation, turning them introverted. 

Similarly, this arrangement can also lead to self-centred behaviour and diminish the habit of sharing from a very young age. Down the line, these traits can engender major problems for them in adulthood: they are likely to grow up as apathetic individuals, incapable of contributing to social causes and the environment. Above all, they may inculcate the habit of taking things for granted, and as adults, they, as per eminent child behaviorists, find themselves struggling with managing their monetary affairs. 

In conclusion, although providing children with a large number of toys may keep them occupied and support the development of creative and analytical skills, it can majorly precipitate unfavorable consequences. Excessive reliance on toys may reduce physical activity and social interaction, and often persuading juveniles to seek emotional comfort in toys rather than their parents. 

‘For all children, the ability to play a musical instrument is just as important as the ability to read and write.’ How far do you agree with this suggestion? How important is it for a child to learn to play a musical instrument, in your view?

‘For all children, the ability to play a musical instrument is just as important as the ability to read and write.’ How far do you agree with this suggestion? How important is it for a child to learn to play a musical instrument, in your view?

In contemporary times, some people say that it is essential for youngsters to learn to play music, as much as they focus on academics.  The following paragraphs will delve deeper into this perspective, by further outlining the necessity to learn a musical instrument.  

On the one hand, learning to operate a musical device can significantly contribute to holistic development. It has been observed that children who engage with music tend to inculcate discipline, concentration, and problem solving skills right from a young age. Additionally, this learning also enhances creativity and communication abilities by enabling youngsters to portray their feelings through a different medium. As per studies, it has been seen that the musical ability  greatly benefits growing minds, especially those  with disabilities to communicate much more effectively making it a great choice for them to communicate and vent their pent-up emotions. Furthermore, learning an instrument  can also help pupils with skill development, particularly those who may not excel in academics. 

On the other hand, literacy is far more essential in everyday life. Without the foundation of this essential acumen in contemporary times, one can significantly be excluded from everyday tasks. Moreover, being literate significantly influences future careers, making it indispensable in an increasingly competitive world. As per various studies, it is observed that individuals who are literate tend to secure stable jobs than those who have exceptional skills in music or any other artform, as literacy forms the backbone of communication and effective learning. 

In conclusion, I believe that academics form the foundation of all life skills and literacy cannot be replaced by additional skill sets or hobbies, even though learning musical instruments can benefit pupils with their overall comprehensive development and can prove to be rewarding for children with special needs. 

In recent years, there has been a significant decline in the diversity of plant and animal species across numerous countries. What are the potential causes of this issue? How can we mitigate it?

In recent years, there has been a significant decline in the diversity of plant and animal species across numerous countries. What are the potential causes of this issue? How can we mitigate it?

Of late,  a significant decline in biodiversity has been observed world over. This can be attributed to myriad reasons: human endeavors, making it imperative to discover remedies to preserve this ecologically critical factor. 

The primary cause of shrinking range of flora and fauna is the loss of habitat caused by deforestation. Diminishing forest cover prompted by urban, industrial, and agricultural expansion, is pushing numerous species into oblivion: with some becoming extinct. Incrementing population has resulted in speeding up industrialisation, posing an immense pressure on the ecosystem. Similarly, illegal hunting and exploitation of flora are adding to complications: animals are killed for their body parts, and trees are cut for their valuable produce like sandalwood.   

Moreover, the things are exacerbated by pollution engendered by industrial waste and effluents  causing soil enervation and destruction of marine and land-based habitats. Moreover, pollution has resulted in global warming, greatly contributing to extreme weather conditions and abrupt climate shifts, making it hard for these organisms to survive in such harsh conditions. 

This catastrophic trend can be countered using a variety of prudent methods at micro and macro levels. Governments should create sanctuaries to preserve green and natural habitats. Additionally, strict laws should be implemented to curtail unlawful activities: poaching, and perpetrators should be penalised severely. Furthermore, sustainable development should be promoted through campaigns and encouraging everyone to become responsible citizens. Likewise, waste produced by manufacturing units should be thoroughly monitored, and industry should be stipulated  to comply with environmental norms and install and upgrade waste treatment facilities and technology. These coherent steps can help avert inevitable disaster.   

In conclusion, the alarming decline in biodiversity is driven by increasing industrialisation and global warming, and  mankind is the primary culprit. However, judicious measures and initiatives can help protect and restore versatile habitats.   

Some people say that cooking food at home is a waste of time. They claim that good restaurants are better and can make modern living easier and less stressful. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Some people say that cooking food at home is a waste of time. They claim that good restaurants are better and can make modern living easier and less stressful. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Agree 

• *Good eateries offer meals that are balanced
• This saves time for other essential tasks
• A rich variety that one can enjoy, something    

Disagree 

• Meals prepared at home are healthy, use fresh ingredients and hygienic 
• They are done carefully since love is main ingredient 
• Build bonds 
• Helps preserve traditions the native gastronomy 
• It does not upset budgets 

Eating out instead of preparing meals at home is becoming ubiquitous, and synonymous with  the contemporary lifestyles, but nonetheless, it is hard to discount the latter; home-cook alternatives  enjoy superiority due to incomparable benefits and offer a credible option for the long run.

Those vouching for dining out suggest that this endeavour makes life uncomplicated, and renders a much required relief to tired to the bone people who are spared of struggling with the daunting task of cooking from scratch, and later cleaning up. To corroborate, the working professionals, especially the  young generation,  must consistently subject themselves to the struggle of fulfilling their obligations, even when telecommuting within deadlines, making it imperative to devote longer than usual time to their work. This leaves them with little energy to cook, and thus, their resort to visiting eateries to douse their hunger.

Nevertheless, despite eating at food joints looking appealing and home-cooked meals pales in comparison, the family-prepared nourishment can afford, one cannot access it anywhere else. The lip-smacking delicacies served in restaurants emphasize on satisfying the taste buds, and completely disregard the nutritional value of ingredients, whereas home-prepared options strike a balance between the both. To exemplify, even the eminent chefs rarely dine at hotels, and rather prefer to enjoy meals at home. Similarly, homemade food is also an economical option: it costs a tiny fraction of what one would spend outside to have an appetizing meal. Many prone to ordering meals from eateries complain facing financial troubles due to overspending.   

In hindsight, outside meals help one circumvent the labour involved in making meals at home, and earn a relaxation, the effort put in kitchens act as a catalyst to wellness, and a bulwark against budgetary disruptions, making it critical rather than being a futile undertaking.

When asked to choose between a life without work and working most of the time, people would always choose not to work. Do you agree or disagree?

When asked to choose between a life without work and working most of the time, people would always choose not to work. Do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, it is commonly perceived when given a choice, most would opt for a life without professional engagement. I disagree with the notion, as I believe that people are much more workaholic than what they used to be. 

A majority are more work-oriented than before, as stable jobs give purpose to their lives, and they feel motivated, and none wants to be plagued by a feeling of worthlessness, something that can affect their mental wellness. For example, many studies observe that those unemployed for long term, are afflicted by depression, and struggle with social isolation. Hence, to avoid such consequences, they keep themselves involved  in some kind of occupation, in turn keeping them content in the longer run. 

Moreover, another factor outrightly debunking this assumption is the rising number of educated individuals, especially females, across a cross-section of skills in diverse fields, giving rise to a generation of workaholics. This has invigorated professional ambitions, persuading investment of ample time in undertakings to guarantee acknowledgement and advancement, making one feel persuaded to consistently strive for their goals, leaving little time for disengagement from their work, or imagine staying away from it.  

Similarly, the deeper penetration of  educational facilities has encouraged many to engender and pursue their goals, and they relentlessly chase those without even needing a break. As per a study by MIT, with education - both primary and advanced - becoming affordable, a growing number, regardless of their socioeconomic backgrounds, are  gaining qualifications in disparate trades appealing to them, and are enthusiastically chasing their dream careers than ever before.  

In conclusion, I strongly believe that people nowadays are more willing to work rather than staying idle. This is not because of the monetary fulfillments but because of the resulting contentment and social respect working offers. 

The world should have only one government rather than a national government for each country. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

The world should have only one government rather than a national government for each country. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

The idea of installing a global governing body, instead of having separate establishments administering their own countries, has long been debated. While such a system might have some merits, I strongly believe that the drawbacks clearly outstrip the former. 

Advocates of this arrangement argue that having a unified regime for the whole world can help resolve numerous global issues, and help develop harmony and respect among diverse cultures.  Additionally, a majority of  international conflicts arise due to the hunger of capturing territorial rights of the others, but engendering this system would outrightly eradicate  cross-border disputes.  For instance, a major portion of the budgets of every country is allocated to strengthen defense systems, to safeguard their borders from potential threats from the neighbouring countries. 

In contrast, many believe that such a set-up can prove to be disastrous, rather than a positive development. This could lead to the government acting arbitrarily at their own whims and fancies, thereby neglecting the actual issues influencing localized circumstances, causing chaos rather than bringing clarity. Additionally, it would undermine the true essence of democracy and would prove to be regressive, by paving the way for authoritarian rules. For instance, in many countries, authoritarian regimes have failed to establish social harmony, rather they have instilled fear and have taken control,  whereas democratic settings extend absolute freedom in almost all walks of lives.  These two different ways of lives would prove to be compatible and thus result in conflicts of interest causing disorder.   

In conclusion, this proposal fails to emanate optimism, as the shortfalls are much more disastrous which cannot be overlooked. The concept of uniform global government does not sit well in a fragmented world, wherein some are placed as democracies, while others are autocratic: the root of all conflicts.  

Many old buildings are protected by law and are part of a nation's history. Some people think they should be knocked down and replaced by new ones. How important is it to maintain old buildings? Should history stand in the way of progress?

Many old buildings are protected by law and are part of a nation's history. Some people think they should be knocked down and replaced by new ones. How important is it to maintain old buildings? Should history stand in the way of progress?

In contemporary times, many believe that it is essential to preserve historical edifices as they are a part of national pride, whereas some believe they should be demolished. This essay shall delve deeper into both the perspective and conclude with my opinion. 

Advocates for preserving such structures argue that it is important to maintain them, as these ancient constructions represent rich ancestral legacy and help preserve long standing history, culture and traditions.  These help one identify the core roots, lifestyle and values that have been embedded in the history. Moreover, it also allows the natives, especially youngsters to stay connected to their roots and values. Additionally,  such locations and premises attract tourism, assisting  in generating huge revenue, thereby  contributing to the economy. For example, India with its wealth of monuments, reflecting richness, versatility and diversity, offer an enriching and enticing experience to tourists from across the world, and the majority of tourism comprises visitors craving to indulge with these ancient buildings. 

In contrast, many people believe that such preservation initiatives by the government are a waste of the contributions of taxpayers. They further argue that there are long-standing issues of the citizens that should be addressed and paid heed to, rather than focusing on saving structures that are already in a deteriorating state. Furthermore, rapid population growth and limited residential space are major concerns in modern society, and many old buildings could be demolished to make way for new infrastructure that would better serve humanity. 

In conclusion, I believe that ancient structures carry history and cannot be completely scrapped. It is also true that increasing population raises concerns with regards to accommodation. Hence, structures that could not be maintained should ideally be demolished, whereas the ones in good condition should continue to be maintained. 

Some people believe that universities should focus on providing theoretical knowledge, while others think they should prepare students with practical skills needed in the workplace. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Some people believe that universities should focus on providing theoretical knowledge, while others think they should prepare students with practical skills needed in the workplace. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. 

Some advocate that varsities should focus on imparting content that helps foster academic skills, while others contend that learners must be equipped with vocational and practical skills to help them become job-ready. In my view, universities must strike a balance between both approaches, as each is essential for the all-round development. 

Theoretical knowledge forms the cornerstone for a deeper understanding of the disciplines pupils intend to follow. In addition, such a curriculum helps garner critical and analytical thinking skills, allowing individuals to tackle complex problems more effectively. This is particularly important in professions such as medicine, engineering and law, where a thorough understanding of underlying concepts is essential before practical application can take place. For instance, medical students must first study human anatomy and biological sciences in detail before they are able to diagnose and treat patients competently. 

However, occupational acumen is as essential to academic knowhow, since this enables pupils to apply academic concepts effectively in professional settings. Modern workplace environments are often demanding and require employees to possess practical abilities, such as time management, teamwork and multitasking. Such skills allow individuals to perform efficiently, and adapt to challenges facing them in a work environment, with adroitness. For instance, in a high-pressure professional atmosphere, personnel demonstrating quick decision-making and adaptability are often valued more highly, as these qualities reflect their competence in functioning effectively under demanding circumstances. As a result, such individuals are more likely to gain a competitive advantage/leverage/edge in the workplace. 

In conclusion, I believe that in the contemporary fast-paced world, universities should prepare learners to foster deeper understanding of both the academic concepts, as well as occupational finesse to allow them to function efficiently and earn success in their professional endeavors. 

Some people think that governments should spend as much money as possible on developing, innovation, science and technology. Other people disagree and think that this money should be spent on more basic needs. Which one of these opinions do you agree with?

Some people think that governments should spend as much money as possible on developing, innovation, science and technology. Other people disagree and think that this money should be spent on more basic needs. Which one of these opinions do you agree with?

There is a fierce debate going on about where the state should focus more. While some feel that priority should be given to discovering innovative technologies, others suggest that it is critical to afford fundamental amenities to the needy populace. I believe that the former view holds substance as it holds the key to the future of a nation.  

In  the  fast-paced contemporary world it has become essential to lay emphasis on advancement in every sphere of life, be it producing food through agriculture; serving citizens through civic amenities, like water, sewage, electricity, and  so forth; or be it  providing quality education and healthcare. Without lodging progress it will be hard for a society to survive because outdated methods do not only cost heavily to operate but also are prone to accidents and failure. This can make societies increasingly dependent on external support in the form of importing replacements and necessary equipment from other countries, costing policy makers dearly in the form of invaluable foreign exchange, and leaving countries poor. 

Similarly, giving preference to modernization is an insurance for a safe and comfortable future for the upcoming generations because investments made today will help them immensely. They will be born in the culture that promotes research, innovation and finding new methodologies, and thus, will be able to consistently work to improve their surroundings, lifestyles and their approach, bringing them enduring success and wealth.

To conclude, it can be said that policy makers should harbour a pragmatic view, and look towards the future as the efforts put in the concurrent times will create opportunities for the present occupants, and also help ensure that the succeeding generation is able to lead for comfortable life.  

Children should play Indoor games on the computer more than outdoor games. Do you agree or disagree with the statement ?

Children should play Indoor games on the computer more than outdoor games. Do you agree or disagree with the statement ? 

The perception that juveniles should play games on computers at home more than going outside to play, is a topic that invites a fierce debate. While these offer certain advantages, they cannot supersede their outdoor counterparts. I fail to concur with this; outdoor games should not be overshadowed by indoor ones. 

Technology-based games have their merits, particularly in developing cognitive and technical skills. Many of these aim at bolstering problem-solving abilities, strategic thinking and hand eye coordination. Additionally, engaging with these can help young minds familiarize with digital environments, an essential requirement for progressive future careers. Moreover, certain multiplayer online games allow them to socialize with others virtually. 

However, those disapproving the former practice assert that it will deprive growing individuals of the benefits of playing games outside can fetch, especially when considering physical, mental and social development. While indulging in undertakings  in a playing field, encourages one to indulge in physical exercise, helping them stay fit and healthy. In contrast, too much time spent playing computer games can lead to a sedentary lifestyle, increasing the risk of obesity and other health problems like poor posture or weak eyesight.

Involvement in games played in open surroundings like playgrounds can foster social skills through face-to face interactions with peers. Sports like soccer, basketball, or even playground activities, teach juveniles about effective communication, cooperation and negotiating competition, which is essential for their emotional and social growth. In comparison, the social interaction of computer games are often limited to virtual spaces, lacking the richness of personal connection.

In conclusion, while computer games have their own relevance, holistic benefits of indulging in outdoor undertakings, that youngsters can reap, will be given a miss. Thus, this practice should not be promoted, and  instead a balanced approach should be embraced.   

Some people think that robots are very important to human’s future development. Others think that they are dangerous and have negative effects on society. Discuss both views and give your opinion with relevant examples from your experience.

Some people think that robots are very important to human’s future development. Others think that they are dangerous and have negative effects on society. Discuss both views and give your opinion with relevant examples from your experience. 

There is a general perception that robots will play a vital role in the future and  bring rich yields, while some believe that these will have detrimental impact on mankind. 

On the effulgent side, autonomous machines hold several promises: they will save humans from hazardous circumstances such as working in locations that can present threat to life like in mines, nuclear plants, near volcanoes, underwater, and in areas plagued with infectious diseases. For example, these self-operated  equipment played a critical role during the Covid-19 pandemic, in terms of serving the patients in various parts of the world, in every possible way, including diagnosing the extent of infection, dispensing medicine to the ailing, in times when health professional were unable to actively take part, protecting their lives eventually. It can be ascertained that in the future, this apparatus will replace people in more and more jobs that carry hazards. 

Moreover, some individuals also believe that these devices can  help doing multiple tasks and generate better outcomes while correcting the  errors automatically. Furthermore,  these machines can  aid in freeing people of tedious tasks like driving since they can do all the tasks without requiring any human involvement. Consequently, they will bring convenience.  

Nevertheless, the other lobby is concerned and feels that automation will take away jobs, take unemployment to unimaginable levels, and impact the economies adversely, and force people to live in poverty.  More and more organizations will embrace these advanced technologies to speed-up the work, and replace workers with them, causing rampant joblessness among the unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled sections. 

To conclude, although these devices have various drawbacks: pushing many out of jobs, affecting impoverished nations more profoundly, I personally believe that automated equipment will surely bring rich dividends, in the form of safety and convenience. 

Some people think that robots are very important to human’s future development. Others think that they are dangerous and have negative effects on society. Discuss both views and give your opinion with relevant examples from your experience.

Some people think that robots are very important to human’s future development. Others think that they are dangerous and have negative effects on society. Discuss both views and give your opinion with relevant examples from your experience. 

They are critical 

• These  machines can guarantee a long term solution for complex becoming work processes that need speed 
• Can perform repetitive tasks consistently 
• precision and uniformity: humans will need the work to be more precise since every sphere of human life is likely to become more sophisticated 
• Safety is what these machines can render to humans since these devices can even work in hazardous and those environment  which are beyond the reach of mankind
• economical: these machines are capable of working without needing extra overheads 

 They are dangerous and have negative effects on society. 

• Unemployment. These are likely to cause large joblessness  
• Loss of skills: humans will forget their skills and abilities 
• They depend on an external power source and if that does not become available due to some reasons, humans will become helpless 
• These machines can be easily manipulated and hacked and used against humans 

Some commentators believe that robots will have positive outcomes in the upcoming time by helping humans in several ways, whereas the other lobby dissents, and believes that these will have adverse effects. I will analyze both the views profoundly in the following paragraphs, and share a plausible conclusion.

Automated machines will play a pivotal role in the life of mankind as these will render quick service with accuracy. Such devices will require an informative command to start processing their work and complete their task seamlessly(smoothly), within the given time, keeping the accuracy on the top. By virtue of this, the life of the people will become convenient, as they will no longer be occupied with their daily regimes, and will have a solution to get it done without errors.To exemplify, a study by an eminent scientist professor Dr. Karl Of Capilano University, states that with the advent of technology, working women will be able to get time for themselves by assigning the duties to these self-operated devices, and get the output without hassles. 

Nevertheless, the other lobby is quite skeptical, and professes that becoming dependent on these apparatus will expose human beings to unemployment; and make them lose their ability to work manually. For instance, an article published by a proficient author Mr. Malik, in the New York Times, claims that inclusion of technology in various areas  will create joblessness as businesses will prefer machines over humans. Moreover, people will stop using their skills, exposing themselves to serious challenges in case these intelligent machines become unavailable.   

Overall, I vehemently feel that these electronic devices will make life of humans easy by removing the burden of performing monotonous tasks even though these might also create joblessness, but this can be overcome by reskilling workers. 

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

Residing in an alien country can be an extremely onerous endeavor if one is unfamiliar with the native tongue, by virtue of encountering a myriad of challenges: establishing friendships with locals, and many more. I subscribe to this notion and elucidate more details in the following paragraphs.

To begin with, one major concern that people, with linguistic incompatibility, might face when trying to settle in an alien country, is harnessing employment opportunities because of the lack of ability to communicate effectively with host employers. This can be corroborated by a survey conducted  by Toronto Sun to assess the employment status of new entrants into Canada that revealed startling facts that over thirty percent of migrants  were unable to  land well-compensated jobs that complemented their qualifications due to them not being able to use English, or French effectively  

Similarly, youngone are the worst sufferers since when they move to an alien region, they find it difficult to interact with the hosts, and consequently, they are badly bullied by their peers in colleges, universities and offices, making them vulnerable to mental complications. Similarly, due to unfamiliar tongues, one might find it onerous to socialize with the locals and take any part in social gatherings, making them feel alienated.

However, things have changed tremendously and made available tools that help transcend barriers posed by lack of knowledge  of native language:  nowadays, there are numerous technologies and apps like duolingo and google translator that assist one in interacting with others seamlessly. Similarly,   many now before relocating, update themselves about the language used in the destination societies. 

To conclude, although one might encounter some problems while relocating to an alien country, due to linguistic incompatibilities, nowadays due to advancement of  technologies, one can effortlessly communicate and adapt to alien societies.  

Some people believe that traditional and cultural values and behaviour will gradually disappear as societies become more modern. Do you agree or disagree?

Some people believe that traditional and cultural values and behaviour will gradually disappear as societies become more modern. Do you agree or disagree?

Agree 

• Global identity means, shedding native beliefs and rituals, and other things like music; 
• This is also fueled by consumerism and global appeal of entertainment, consumer goods and cultural unification 
• Rapid urbanization that is exposing people to new ways of life which has little room for traditional lifestyles   

Disagree 

• The cultural aspirations have held steadfast, and have instead adapted themselves to modern times without losing their authenticity 
• Even families living in nuclear settings are ensuring that their next generation is well-informed about the beliefs endemic to their communities
• Social media has made it possible to promulgate local beliefs 

While some fear that the shifting paradigm in all walks of life may cause traditional beliefs to die, this notion lacks conviction as advancement is instead bringing people closer to their customs, helping ensure that these will continue to exist.

Those  alleging that the advent of fresh aspirations and alterations are going to unfavorably impact native ways of life, profess that this phenomenon has promoted a global identity in all spheres: language, clothing, festivals and food, among others. This has led to many, especially the young generation, to abandon their own traditions, and very soon the latter will diminish. However, this perception is misconceived; even the youth can clearly differentiate between foreign and their own lifestyles, and successfully maneuver between the two. 

Nevertheless, the progress has rather reinvigorated the dying conventional ceremonies. The availability of state-of-the-art tools and applications has allowed perpetuation of cultural practices, and community leaders are able to conduct a profound research on their traditional systems and enlighten the populace at large, engaging it more actively. To corroborate, social media has become a vehicle of proliferating information about the festivities, and rationale behind observing them, widely, convincing even the strongest critics of traditionalism to celebrate events.

Moreover, parents, despite living in nuclear family settings, are involving their progeny in rituals, celebrations, and learning about cultural and religious aspects. For instance, children are regularly sent to attend classes imparting knowledge of scriptures, folk dance and music, and so forth, and participate in communal programs and processions, to educate them about their indigenous routines.

In hindsight, the concerns about local beliefs being pushed into extinction by progressive thought processes and global aspirations, are completely unfounded; technology and the intent to practice the culture, are going to ensure that the traditional ways will always exist.          

Some people believe that students should be required to wear uniforms in school, while others argue that uniforms restrict individuality and self-expression. What is your opinion?

Some people believe that students should be required to wear uniforms in school, while others argue that uniforms restrict individuality and self-expression. What is your opinion? 

The general perception is emerging that like pupils must don the official clothing in schools, but others voice their disagreement saying this restricts distinctiveness and personal traits. This essay will shed some light on both perspectives and share a viable opinion. 

To start with, a lobby strongly propounds that school attire conveys discipline. In other words, when all the learners are clothed in the same manner, it showcases routine and control; consequently, turning them into responsible adults in the future. For example, a recent survey revealed that those adhering to a regular school ensemble code, grow into well-mannered and self-controlled adults.

Moreover, this arrangement helps dilute the socioeconomic barriers among classmates hailing from disparate backgrounds, engendering harmony, promoting a sense of cohesion, and pushing all to pursue one goal: to attain success through education. To corroborate, in Japan, since everyone sports the school attire, young minds are focussed on learning rather than thinking about whether their classmates are rich or poor. Similarly, school is a place to gain education, and rendering liberty to wear what one likes would turn the schooling environment  into a place  for fashion shows, wherein everyone will be found flaunting outfits in front of their peers. 

Having said that, a group of skepticals feel this can limit creativity since this not only demotivates one and  curtails their ability to express freely but also impedes creativity, allowing diverse  dressing styles can make the environment  of the formal tuition vibrant. However, this view is hanging by a thread, lacks  substance, and hence, it should be ignored.

In conclusion, considering the aforementioned views, I believe that there should be a permanent standard dress for the students since such practices imbibe discipline and eliminate social and economic differences among them.