In some countries, more and more people are becoming interested in finding out about the history of the house or building they live in. What are the reasons for this? How can people research this?

In some countries, more and more people are becoming interested in finding out about the history of the house or building they live in. What are the reasons for this? How can people research this?

In current times, many are increasingly becoming eager to explore the background of the houses or buildings they are residing in. This curiosity is driven by a mixture of practical concerns, cultural interests, and even personal beliefs, and there are umpteen ways to derive information about this matter.

To begin with, one major reason is the intent to determine the age of the construction, which can help residents estimate future maintenance costs. For instance, an older property may demand frequent repairs, while a relatively new one may be easier to maintain. Another factor is superstition: certain individuals wish to learn whether previous occupants experienced misfortune, as this may influence their comfort in living there. Apart from this, many often take pride in learning that their house was once owned by a famous personality; it adds prestige to their residence. Furthermore, there are legal aspects, as researching the history ensures that no disputes are attached to the dwelling unit, helping safeguard  financial interests.

There are several effective ways to research such matters. The most straightforward approach is speaking directly to former owners or brokers, who usually have first-hand knowledge of the property. Additionally, interviewing neighbours and long-term residents of the area can provide valuable insights, including stories not found in official documents. On a more formal level, visiting the central registry of urban authorities can offer access to authentic records such as ownership documents, building permits, and legal clearances.

In conclusion, the motivation to uncover the past of a property stems out of intent to know about attributes such as possible maintenance and legal claims, and personal beliefs and pride, and by seeking insights from neighbours, former owners, and official records, one can gain a deeper understanding of their homes.

Today, TV channels broadcast men’s sports shows more than women’s sport shows. Why is this the case? Should TV channels give equal showtime for each?

Today, TV channels broadcast men’s sports shows more than women’s sport shows.

Why is this the case?

Should TV channels give equal showtime for each?

Why women sports gets lesser time on television 

• There is commercial consideration: men sports has bigger fan following in comparison to women - viewership rating  men’s sports has wormen followers too, but women sports has mostly women followers only 
• More men are into sports than their women counterparts 
• There is huge money involved in men sports in comparison to women  and that is why television prefers men’s sports
• Conservative attitude of societies force television companies to avoid women sports 

Commercial compulsion should be given precedence 

• It may not be profitable 
• 
  

Women should also get more time 

• Women need all the encouragement to engage in this activity: 
• their upliftment 
• sports is emerging as a burgeoning industry that can render employment to millions 
• This will help societies abandon their orthodox attitudes 

While sporting events involving men can be frequently seen on television, those featuring women are a rare occurrence. This gender bias is primarily driven by commercial compulsions, but it is the need of the hour to halt this practice to enhance the status of women.

The most common pretext offered for this lopsided attitude is that sporting disciplines featuring males attract colossal investments that are needed to sustain such a money intensive domain and draw profits. It is argued that sports have been traditionally considered the realm of men, and thus, might not stimulate similar interests from the audience, and businesses might circumvent infusing resources into such areas. 

However, media attention has always helped invigorate interest in every field, and the same rationale applies to sports: men or women. A majority of male sports like lawn tennis and basketball, evolve and attain prominence. Similarly,  female sections of these sports also developed widespread popularity: they were given equal time in the USA and Europe, allowing events, like Wimbledon championships, featuring women to gain more sponsorships than only male events. Thus, exercising fairness will aid in empowering females, laying open a new employment venue at their disposal.

Additionally, abandoning this discriminatory attitude will enable breaking the stereotype, and induce aspiring young girls to exhibit their sporting skills and physical prowess. This will, consequently, put them at par with men, and force communities to abandon social taboos. To corroborate, telecasting women wrestling matches on Indian television motivated more and more parents to engage their daughters in this sport, and shun orthodox beliefs. 

To recap, the lopsided perspective harboured by mediahouses does not highlight the reality; their attention on any domain has made it commercially viable. Therefore, abandoning this prejudice will help female sport become popular and economically sustainable.

Nowadays young people prefer going to shopping centers rather than spending their time in organized activities such as sport or music. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

Nowadays young people prefer going to shopping centers rather than spending their time in organized activities such as sport or music. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

In contemporary times, young people often prefer visiting shopping centers instead of engaging in structured activities such as sports, or music. While some view this as a natural outcome of modernization, others believe it may have harmful consequences. I shall discuss both perspectives and give a plausible conclusion whether it is a positive or negative development.

On the effulgent side, shopping centers provide an attractive and convenient space for young individuals to socialize; these not only are hubs for purchasing goods but also places where friends can gather, dine, or enjoy recreational facilities such as cinemas and gaming zones, such experiences can reduce stress and foster social bonding, especially in times when youngsters are overwhelmingly surrounded by instructions in every walk of their life, even leisure, so small rendezvous with shopping renders  them some time for themselves, wherein they can enjoy and meet with their friends without the fear of retribution or  time constraints.   

On the  obsidian side, there are significant drawbacks in young people prioritizing malls over organized activities. Sports, for instance, encourage physical fitness, teamwork, and discipline, while music nurtures creativity and emotional expression. Choosing malls over these pursuits may lead to wasteful lifestyles, limiting opportunities for skill development, and long-term personal growth. Additionally, frequent shopping can promote materialism and impulsive spending, which may place a burden on personal finances, and shape unhealthy attitudes that glorify material wealth. In contrast, sports and arts can often provide future career pathways and lifelong benefits, which these youth forego knowingly.

At the end of discussion, while shopping centers may offer some degree of entertainment, relying on them excessively as a primary leisure activity is largely detrimental,  owing to it encouraging materialism, weakening physical and creative growth, and leading to financial strains.

Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement. To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste?

Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement. To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste?

In current times, there has been profound debate about turning recycling for households into a legal obligation to promote this ecofriendly endeavor,  while others reject this notion. I shall discuss both the points and deduce my stand. 

To embark upon the discussion, an army of people suggests that this policy will eventually minimize the environmental wastage: everyone will follow the legal statute without questions, persuading others in the process. For instance, back in the  1900s wearing helmets while commuting on motor-cycles was made mandatory - this step despite being resented at first,  ended up  engendering awareness among two-wheeler riders about safety. Similarly, this notion would bring the same. Apart from this, many believe that after a generation has passed, this exercise will become a social ritual just like the helmet law.

Nevertheless, another school of thought has a distinct perspective with the aforementioned thoughts, and they profess that such a move will be too harsh a step; recycling is a relatively new concept in its rudimentary stage. Most common people lack the knowledge and resources to perpetuate this exercise. Thus, this step will fail to churn out tangible outcomes unless the populace has been apprised with knowledge, resources and expertise to deal with this system. A similar law was introduced in the remote realm of Miami, the results contrasted significantly, as almost 80% of participants struggled to organize resources effectively and demonstrated limited competence, causing widespread resentment, thereby forcing local authorities to withdraw this statute,and switch to educating the public first.  

In conclusion, despite controversies and counter arguments, it is paradoxical to overlook the recycling law imposition. This undertaking should be institutionalized only after delivering fundamental knowhow and resources to the populace, so that they can effectively comply with requirements.  

Some say that modern technology is giving people more time, while others think it is making them busier. Discuss both views and give your opinion. Discuss

Some say that modern technology is giving people more time, while others think it is making them busier. Discuss both views and give your opinion. Discuss 

Some feel that modern technology is giving people more time 

• People are saving time on various activities such as going shopping, paying bills, banking, communicating, cooking 
• Traveling,  by cars, trains, airplane
• Conducting business is now quick, sending email, and communicating online. Advertising, closing deals 
• Attending classes from the comfort zones without needing to travel to institutions

Others think it is making them busier

• Technology had expanded the scope of work, loading people with responsibilities 
• More and more interaction with others through technology has expanded the list of acquaintances and people take longer to interact with them 

Proliferation of technology to every walk of life and its impact has evoked mixed reactions from various sections: some say that one has more free time at their disposal, others feel that this has made life more occupied than the past. 

Undeniably, speed has become associated with every imaginable task one can do, be it sending communications - where they do not have to wait for weeks or months to receive replies from their counterparts, or be it traveling to far-off destinations - that was an arduous task in yesteryears when people spend days and week to finally arrive at their desired destinations. Now, one can communicate in matter of hours if not minutes, and also reach half way across the globe within a matter of 17 hours. This has helped make big savings on time.   

Similarly, one does not need to spend half say committing themselves to fulfilling the task of paying bills, buying necessities or depositing or withdrawing money from banks since all these can be conveniently negotiated using online mediums from the comfort zones within a matter of a few minutes. People need to simply log on to portals like amazon to shop, use mobile phones to pay bills and use bank websites to remit money. 

Nevertheless, some argue that they have less time than the past, by virtue of companies expanding their operational areas using online methods and loading their workers with an extra burden of responsibilities and jobs that take longer to complete. Most MNC organizations allocate additional overseas assignments to their personnel making them spend longer at their job. 

To recapitulate, after assessing both the sides of the coin, it can be safely asserted(said) that technology has impacted human life in both ways. It has brought relief in some areas like cooking and traveling, but fetched  additional professional obligations along with.  

Some people say that technology has decreased the time people spend on various tasks, while others say that this has loaded them with more work and it takes longer to finish it. 

I

While recruiting a new employee, the employer should pay more attention to their personal qualities, rather than qualifications and experience. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your opinion and include relevant examples.

While recruiting a new employee, the employer should pay more attention to their personal qualities, rather than qualifications and experience. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your opinion and include relevant examples.

In incumbent times, recruitment is crucial for any organization; hiring the right candidate underpins long-term growth and success. Some argue that employers should prioritize personal qualities over academic qualifications and work experience. I feel that while personal traits such as integrity, adaptability, and teamwork are essential, qualifications and experience remain equally important, and therefore, a balanced approach should be adopted.

An army of individuals thinks personal traits often play a decisive role in determining how effectively an employee integrates into a workplace. For instance, highly skilled workers lacking ethos of cooperation, or discipline, may disrupt team productivity, whereas those moderately skilled but reliable, and hardworking, can contribute positively to organizational culture. Dexterity in problem-solving ability, leadership, and communication are vital in the contemporary dynamic business environment, where adaptability is often valued more than technical finesse. Moreover, employers can provide training to enhance skills, but shaping core values and attitudes often remains far cry.

Nevertheless, undeniably, although a modern enterprise needs personnel capable of working in sync with their colleagues,  completely overlooking qualifications and seasoning is unwise. Certain professions, especially medicine, law, or engineering, require technical acumen, and are irreplaceable  by mere personality. For example, doctors must possess professional qualifications, and years of practice, to treat patients safely; qualities like empathy and patience, despite being essential, cannot supersede medical knowledge. Similarly, in highly competitive industries, prior exposure bolsters efficiency, and needs minimal supervision, saving both time and resources for employers.

In conclusion,  businesses should indeed value personal qualities because they shape workplace harmony and long-term commitments. However, occupational adroitness  and experience provide the technical foundation required to negotiate specialized tasks. The most effective recruitment strategy, therefore, is one that evaluates both aspects in equal measure, ensuring that employees are competent, and culturally aligned with the organization.

Some people feel that the on and off the field behavior of good sportsmen and women does not matter until their performance is good. Do you agree or disagree? Write at least 250 words with relevant examples.

Some people feel that the on and off the field behavior of good sportsmen and women does not matter until their performance is good. Do you agree or disagree? Write at least 250 words with relevant examples.

It is generally suggested by some that the professional and personal conduct of in-form players should be overlooked.  However, this notion can be challenged on various grounds. 

Those rallying behind embracing a liberal policy propound that the ones excelling in their respective sporting disciplines must be given some room, by virtue of them being under extreme pressure to sustain their fitness and performance, which can sometimes prove to be overwhelming pushing them to act capriciously. Moreover, these individuals, with their sterling performances, boost the reputation of the country at the international level, highlighting youthfulness and its caring approach towards its populace, making them deserving candidates for being pardoned for their approach in all domains. 

Nevertheless, the perfection and adroitness displayed by sports personnel does not, in any way, imply that their erratic attitude, on professional or on personal fronts,  can be condoned; they are prominent public figures, enthusiastically idolized by millions of their countrymen, especially the youth, and their unacceptable demeanour can send a wrong signal, prompting  similar responses from society. 

Similarly, affording such latitude to anyone it will have severe ramifications for team discipline as well as the reputation of the sports, upsetting several keen/ avid followers of that game. That was the only reason why the celebrated cricketer, and the captain of South African team, Hansie Cronje, was banned for life from cricket, after  he was charged for match fixing: it was done to set a benchmark for future and assert that no such approach would be forgiven.

In hindsight, this recommendation lacks substance, and is likely to produce unwarranted outcomes. Undisciplined conduct, even if by successful sports professionals cannot be accepted as this will adversely impact social environment and other teammates, or counterparts: these noted figures must exhibit civility and noble behaviour. 

Many people who are born in rural areas move to big cities when they grow older. Do you think this is a positive or a negative development? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Many people who are born in rural areas move to big cities when they grow older. Do you think this is a positive or a negative development? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

In modern times, migration of people from rural to urban areas has become a common phenomenon. This leads to the development of society, but on the same page it has negative consequences, making it imperative to analyze whether it is favorable or unfavorable. 

Young ruralites by migrating get a chance to explore opportunities available in urban areas which can help them to get employment and sustain a good lifestyle. They can obtain chances to fully utilize their potential which they cannot do in their home towns, owing to lack of opportunities, and foster better skills, in their desired areas of specialization. This can help them gain better paid jobs and improve their lifestyles. 

However, it may have a negative impact on the lifestyle of people originally belonging to urban areas, as the immense influx makes city areas overpopulated and residential areas congested. To exemplify, people from rural areas shift to urban areas, but end up being jobless, worsening their situation: they are compelled to live in slums and face hardships.   

Furthermore, they come to urban areas leaving their hometowns which make those places vulnerable as they are left with no young able-bodied people to take up occupations related to agriculture, and so forth it is likely to hinder the development of the farming industry. For instance, the countryside in many countries is facing a steep shortage of workers to engage in agricultural activities, and as a result, they are forced to bring migrants from other parts of countries, which is making farming an expensive activity, and reducing profitability.

In conclusion, this frequent influx of ruralites in urban areas, has more of a negative impact. This recurring phenomenon is diminishing the quality of lifestyle of people and is affecting society at a larger level.

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?

It is generally perceived that if offered an opportunity, a majority will prefer surviving without engaging in any kind of occupational undertakings. However, this notion is quite misplaced and not founded on facts, I shall elucidate this in the following paragraphs.

Some assume that many like to live freely, and do not want themselves to be bound by the constraints of employment. They find it better to be surrounded by their families at home, and this provides them an immense level of contentment. In addition, some individuals find it difficult to do hard work and proceed to lead a prosaic/ mundane lifestyle.

However, this notion is denied by significant numbers, majorly by those feeling life cannot be spent in vain without achieving any goal. Further, some people have a faith that they cannot waste their valuable time being lethargic, and thus, they like to go to workplaces and spend their time in a productive way. 

Similarly, many are inclined to choose to engage in professional endeavors to ensure their and the survival of their families, like fulfill basic needs, including food, shelter and clothing, and advanced requirements such as education and healthcare, apart from ensuring their and the future of their upcoming generation: investing into creating buffer for higher education and  post-retirement life. For example, as per studies a majority of the global populace cannot think of sitting idle; they must earn to make their ends meet, and also create resources to afford comforts for their kin.  

In conclusion, I would disagree with the statement as a work free lifestyle may not be opted by many, and the reasons for it are quite evident. A life with work feels more satisfactory and productive, and often is the only solution for survival for many.  

We can get knowledge from news, but some people think we can’t trust the journalist. Discuss and give your opinion. What do you think are the important qualities that a journalist should have?

We can get knowledge from news, but some people think we can’t trust the journalist. Discuss and give your opinion. What do you think are the important qualities that a journalist should have?

Yes  

• There have been cases, although rare, infrequent, sporadic which have cast a doubt on the sanctity of this profession. Some people are stimulated by commercial compulsions: viewership and readership ratings 
• Political correctness has also had a corrupting influence on them. They are driven by the majority opinion. They avoid derision and indignation of the masses and their fraternity 
• influence of elite and powerful who reward them for the

No 

• Barring a few, most are devoted to this noble task, they never let any kind of inducement interfere with their professional objectives. 
• They risk not on their but also the lives of their family members 
• They are non-judgemental and present news as it is. 

Qualities 

• Unbiased, impartial 
• Non-judgemental 
• Empathetic - must practice self censure to avoid presenting news  in such way that could cause social discord 
• Fear less 
• Incorruptible 
• Good communicator 
• Having knowledge of the subject, they are presenting reports about  

Although many question the credibility of contemporary journalists, this notion is misplaced. I feel  that excluding exceptions, most professionals in this domain strictly adhere to the fundamental tenets of their occupation, and exercise fairness.

The  apprehension casting doubts on the integrity of correspondents is their craving for gaining visibility together with prosperity quickly. This persuades them to compromise with their principles and resort to either leaning towards political correctness, or distorting the information to create sensation and gain popularity. For instance, some reporters, especially the ones covering ‘the Gulf War’ were blamed for being highly biased, and presenting lopsided details despite knowing that the majority of their audience is  already well-informed about the causes and circumstances of the conflict.

Nevertheless, although the concerns highlighted are not unfounded, such reporters are anomalies; an overwhelming majority remain devoted to their professions, and practice transparency. They always quote all possible angles of an event, and present the news as it is without being judgemental. To exemplify, the award-winning press woman, Ms. Kassa was praised highly for investigative journalism in the famine plagued Ethiopia.   

To be considered reliable, news professionals must be incorruptible, fearless, and defiant of  the compulsions - greed for money, and influence of the powerful - that coax them to go astray, and instead comply with the ethics of their trade. To corroborate, it  is easy to find dedicated media men, and women, worldover hopping jobs frequently simply because they refuse to yield to the owners of media houses, or the temptations to amass wealth.

To reiterate, notwithstanding the unscrupulous minority, a majority engaged in journalism remain committed to their work by upholding unbiased character, and demonstrating ethical behaviour. They remain insulated from all kinds of personal and professional influences, and never deviate from their path.  

Young drivers are careless and overconfident, and too many are killed in accidents. To eliminate this problem, we could teach children the skills of safe driving while they are at school. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Young drivers are careless and overconfident, and too many are killed in accidents. To eliminate this problem, we could teach children the skills of safe driving while they are at school. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Nowadays, fatal road mishaps, involving young individuals, are witnessing a surge, so many opine that to eliminate this problem, schools must train youngsters about appropriate driving, but how far this proposal can be deemed acceptable, is a matter that needs a profound scrutiny  

A school of thought backs this idea by citing the obligation of schooling: to foster and polish the overall personality of young individuals, and since using roads safely as motorists forms an integral part of the persona of lawful citizens, it is pertinent to inculcate this education in classrooms. Further, schools have an appropriate learning environment for better grooming as learners can effortlessly absorb the new skills with their peers, and also retain it enduringly, as it has been seen in several other areas of learning. 

However,  many assert that the basic objective of the formal tuition is affording the strong foundation of academics, and this topic will only cause distraction and disruption: everyone will only want to learn this, instead of other more essential but complicated domains. Moreover, this will precipitate chaos by persuading young minds to  commit misdemeanors, as was observed in the Hisar road accident case in India, wherein the driver was just sixteen years old, who learned some fundamentals about road use while sitting behind the wheel, and he ended up trying dangerous stunts on a bridge to flaunt his abilities in front of his peers, resulting in his death by falling off the 100 ft bridge.

In hindsight, I strongly believe that driving should not be a part of the formal curriculum; it is something that develops with maturity, and can be learned from the certified institutions. Therefore, it would be better for the sake of society to keep this subject out of bounds for juveniles. 

A government’s role is only to provide defense capability and urban infrastructure (road, water supplies…). All other services (education, health, social security) should be provided by private groups or individuals in the community. To what extent do you agree or disagree.

A government’s role is only to provide defense capability and urban infrastructure (road, water supplies…). All other services (education, health, social security) should be provided by private groups or individuals in the community. To what extent do you agree or disagree.

Many have started suggesting that the role of contemporary regimes should be confined to administering defence and other infrastructural facilities, while the rest such as education should be made the responsibility of the privately-run enterprise. Although this proposal seems feasible on many grounds, I feel executing this completely could prove to be a recipe for disaster.

Privately-owned undertakings focus on optimal utilization with no, or a minimal wastage, allowing efficient operations unlike state-supported initiatives. It is felt that this would help preserve invaluable resources majorly contributed by taxpayers, and also ease the burden of policy makers who would be able to focus on strategic sectors that do not make profits, but are critical for the smooth functioning of society and its security. For example, the USA follows this model, wherein its lawmakers detach themselves from this task and allow commercial enterprises to take the onus of educating and taking care of the health of citizens. This has resulted in efficient collaboration between the government and citizens.

However, despite promising efficiency, this arrangement could precipitate chaos. Undeniably, the primary objective of every business is earning profits, and thus, even though they might usher in innovation, as they have done in the domain of education and healthcare where they have introduced the state-of-the-art equipments and methods, the prices they charge for the services extended are exceedingly exorbitant, taking them out of the reach of a sizable percentage of middle income groups, and all of those who are marginalized, and cannot survive without subsidized interventions.

To recap, I cannot completely concur with these proposed settings, for it will create disparity in society, and widen the gap between the affluent and the impoverished. Thus if such a policy is adopted, lawmakers should keep certain sectors out of its ambit. 

Some people think that when recruiting, companies should aim to take on people who are innovative and able to work independently while others consider they should recruit people who are able to work in a team and follow instructions.

Some people think that when recruiting, companies should aim to take on people who are innovative and able to work independently, while others consider they should recruit people who are able to work in a team and follow instructions.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.

In the current scenario of cut-throat business environment, a great variation in selection strategies of job aspirants is being observed: some profess shortlisting those who are resourceful and can operate autonomously, others lean in the favor of those adapted to functioning in coordination with others.  

Generally, the Industries such as pharma, drone Manufacturing, Food, IT, and so on,  which are hardcore research and development oriented, and require to preserve their intellectual property rights, seek personnel, capable of thinking out of the box and execute their knowledge without needing external intervention, so that they can run independent profit earning centers. Additionally, professional firms engaged in the business of rendering services of legal, financial, secretarial and other need-based advisory, usually prefer to have employees with in-depth knowledge and capability to deploy their genius without needing directions, so that the process of extending suggestions can be shortened.  

However, there are sectors that require large manpower such as security, project operations, and mining, among others, with well-defined hierarchy, and rely heavily on coordination between disparate organizational components to function flawlessly: these businesses can only function if their work environment engenders a harmony between actions of various workers, levels and departments, otherwise a chaos could descend and conflicts could precipitate, hampering the productivity. Such sectors can only flourish if they are populated by individuals prone to synchronization with their colleagues. Therefore, human resource departments of such entities only shortlist those candidates who express their willingness to engage in endeavors as team players.   

In conclusion, it can be said that the choice of personnel: high fliers,  or team players, overwhelmingly depends on the organizational structure and nature of business, and the hiring policies are adapted as per those expectations and future projections. 

 

Nowadays cultures around the world are becoming more and more similar, as compared to the past. What are the reasons for this? Is this a positive or a negative development?

Nowadays cultures around the world are becoming more and more similar, as compared to the past. What are the reasons for this? Is this a positive or a negative development?

In contemporary times, it has been observed that “one identity, one culture” has gained acceptance across the world. This  is driven by several factors and can impact people and countries both favorably and unfavorably.

Educational institutions are guiding youngsters towards globalization, and the contemporary generation is also focussed on self awareness and so does not want to be restricted by socio-cultural boundaries. They consider all cultures, religion and tribal factors  as obsolete, and wish to transcend all barriers and doing whatever they like has become a trend unlike the past, where people cared for their ancestral socio-cultural obligations and cast based barriers.

Experts consider this a positive approach, as this mindset brings a positive attribute on the society, which lets people live like a global citizen and avoid being stuck in the regional and ethnic constraints. In addition, this phenomenon is bringing peace and harmony amongst people of diverse cultures. This positive change has also carved the way to find mechanisms to eliminate the enduring challenges such as bias based on race, creed and socio-cultural backgrounds, helping build a better and cohesive global society. 

However, some fear that this approach might cause the demise of several cultures; with the universal aspirations  gaining acceptability, people, especially the youth might end up forgetting their native identity and history. This could mean a great loss not only a society but also the world as the traditions, rituals and local knowledge associated with the disappearing culture might also be lost forever

In hindsight, disputes aside, although the modern aspirations that lean towards a uniform global way of life do present a challenge for weaker societies, these impediments can be surmounted provided the concerned governments and communities act prudently, and endeavor to preserve their home-grown beliefs. 

In many countries, coffee chains are expanding rapidly, which some claim threatens the survival of small local cafés.To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In many countries, coffee chains are expanding rapidly, which some claim threatens the survival of small local cafés.To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The growing ubiquity of giant coffee house brands  has propounded the notion that these are forcing their local competition to close. However, some do not concur with this, making it imperative to analyse this matter critically before delivering a justified conclusion.

To begin with, established cafes have a comfortable ambience along with facilities  allowing people to sit there, and spend their time lair time, as well as do their work there. For instance, in Canada Tim Hortons having more than 4000 outlets at several locations allow students to work there for hours without any disturbance. This has made them immensely popular among their customers and overtake their smaller competitors.

In addition, big coffee brands make huge investments and they are following the concept of aggressively promoting their brands. Besides advertising, they offer uniform taste and prices, which compel people to choose their brand over others. For instance, Starbucks, whether located in India or Dubai, would offer the same aroma and tastes of coffee. 

However, some people believe that authentic tastes that small cafes offer cannot be matched by big cafe houses. Moreover, the flexibility in their location attracts customers, they are located in unique environments and atmosphere which make people avail their services. For instance, small cafes comfortably placed in various parts of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, and so forth,  tend to offer genuine local flavors which can never be replicated by big coffee brands. These factors allow them to survive in the face of stiff competition from global brands.

In conclusion, I partially subscribe to this notion. Even though global brands have established themselves firmly everywhere, the genuineness offered by the small cafes are allowing them to endure the stiff competition successfully, and survive. 

Many people want their country to host an international sporting event. Others believe that international sporting events bring more problems than benefits. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

 Many people want their country to host an international sporting event. Others believe that international sporting events bring more problems than benefits. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

In modern times, many argue that hosting an international sports event in their country can be advantageous, but many refute the same by citing that it is more menacing than being beneficial. This essay will shed light on both the aspects and provide a justified conclusion.

To start with, many people believe that hosting an international sports event can be beneficial for their country as it will bring them significant attention and an opportunity to introduce their culture across the globe, their food, and indigenous traditions, which can result in fostering mutual respect among visitors and hosts, and support exchange of views. 

Moreover, hosting a mega sports event can bring numerous advantages to a country, such as, developing of new modern infrastructure, in terms of sports facilities and new hotels to accommodate the visitors, opening the way for world leading businesses to invest in the country, thereby creating employment and business opportunities.  In addition to this, this also brings huge tourism to the country, which assists them to motivate their local businesses and create a way for local people to work more in order to gain profit.

However, hosting such tournaments also has some ramifications such as, building new stadiums needs huge land banks for construction, often resulting in deforestation, and disturbing  nature. Similarly, big tourism brings more waste with them, causing pollution. For instance, in 2014,  Brazil hosted the FIFA World Cup, a blockbuster event that left empty stadiums with waste and high maintenance cost, which eventually is being borne by Brazilians.  

In hindsight, barring a few drawbacks, such international undertakings render more benefits, and thus, countries should host leading international sports events, in order to provide the best experience to their own people and  motivate them. 

Some people think the government should subsidise fruits and vegetables to make healthy food more affordable. Others argue that the government should tax unhealthy food instead. Discuss

 Some people think the government should subsidise fruits and vegetables to make healthy food more affordable. Others argue that the government should tax unhealthy food instead. Discuss 

In contemporary times, some believe that it is the duty of the state to keep citizens of the nation hale and hearty. Consequently, some advocate state contribution in the prices of healthy nourishment, while others believe that unhealthy food should be rather taxed.  

To begin, if governments subsidise healthy food such as fruits and vegetables, it will promote a shift in eating habits. People, the impoverished, will be persuaded to consume something that ensures their well being; they will be able to afford otherwise expensive edible goods. For instance, in India, healthy breads were subsidized in many provinces which enabled even poor people to afford them, boosting their consumption, and improving their health. The enormous availability of healthy goods at a lower rate, compels farmers and producers to use healthy additives which ultimately minimises the usage of lucrative unhealthy additives.

However, if unhealthy food is taxed then younger people will not consume them anymore as it will become out of reach for certain individuals, and they will automatically get inclined towards healthy food. Moreover, this shift to healthy food will help the  state as the revenues can be invested in supporting organic farming and food production practices.  Similarly, overpriced unhealthy food will become unpopular with manufacturers, and they will substitute these for healthier ingredients.  For instance, in many parts of India unhealthy foods were heavily taxed on which manufacturers responded by shifting towards healthy additives; biofertilizers.

In conclusion, I feel that policy makers should adopt a balanced approach. Both the arrangements can contribute towards a healthy nation. Where one will help create inclination for healthy food habits, the other can dissuade the populace from faulty food habits. 

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. 

Owing to modernization, usage of robots and artificial intelligence have increased. This attracts different notions: some people oppose the usage of robots, while some believe that it will eventually lead to development. Thus, to provide a justified conclusion, it is imperative to analyse both the notions.

To commence, automation can provide solutions to the issue of repetition and can perform such tasks efficiently and effectively. Moreover, these new innovations can support individuals in performing  complex tasks effortlessly. For instance, AI  provides back to students in solving their mathematical problems without them needing to tax their brains. 

Similarly, highly sophisticated machines are capable of performing tasks in hazardous environments where people find it difficult to reach and that too economically as the machines can be affordable and long lasting. In addition, these machines and innovations work with great precision. For instance, in the field of surgery they can operate with hand stability and can operate even on minutest organs.

However, these modern innovations are the greatest contributors to unemployment, which is causing poverty because these are economical, and easily surpass the need for manual work. In addition, high usage of automation in daily lives is reducing creativity, and is creating over dependence on technology, making humans forget their skills. For instance, use of these machines in writing and carrying out mathematical calculations has increased over time; consequently, people are losing their ability to write and count without the assistance of these devices.   

In conclusion, I would say although automation and modern devices are going to prove to be quite beneficial in the long run, by contributing to the development, these must be used consciously and responsibly. Humans can derive higher productivity and avoid repercussions by utilizing these innovations responsibly.

Some people believe that employers should allow their employees to work from home whenever possible. Others believe that employees should work in an office. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Some people believe that employers should allow their employees to work from home whenever possible. Others believe that employees should work in an office. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Allow teleworking 

• Afford relief to workers from grueling commutes, and some time to relax 
• Enable them to strike a balance between work and life 
• Personnel can give extra hours 
• Businesses will be able to curtail cost of operations
• They can hire skills from any city or country    

Resort to traditional system 

• Maintain discipline or work force 
• Allow problem-solving quickly as personnel and seniors can work in cohorts at short notice 
• Afford security to business ideas and information

It is sometimes suggested that teleworking should be integrated in the employment policy, but some dissent with this and favor perpetuation of traditional setup. I believe that a hybrid model, combining both systems, should be adopted.

Telecommuting will afford a much needed respite from grueling everyday commutes to the beleaguered personnel. They will be able to use the time saved to attend to their family obligations, helping them strike the balance between work and life. Similarly, they will have more time to devote to their work, and fulfil their duties. For instance, several organizations like Google, have embraced this liberal approach, which has enabled their workforce to derive job satisfaction.

Moreover, businesses will also be able to draw benefits from this arrangement, in the form of lower cost of operations. They will not need to arrange transportation, sprawling office places, furniture and equipment, and other amenities, which will save their invaluable money. To exemplify, companies like Accenture have partially shifted to this concept, and have reported a humongous decline in their operational expenses. 

Nevertheless, the rewards fetched by conventional settings, attending office physically, are incomparable. Since this approach mandates presence of colleagues and seniors at job, it becomes possible to work in cohorts; seek suggestions and counsel; and resolve impediments at work without delay. Additionally, it is easier to sustain discipline, and ensure adherence to performance norms beside maintaining secrecy. To corroborate, Boeing, an aerospace giant, stipulates attendance of all employees in the office premises. As per its CEO, this has allowed them to streamline their operations and deliver projects on time.

Thus, deploying a combination of both the arrangements can prove to be quite conducive for contemporary businesses, with one guaranteeing job satisfaction and economical operations, the other allowing quick problem-solving, and ensuring secrecy. 

Euthanasia, or mercy killing, has been a controversial issue for many years. Although many people are strongly against such a practice, there is a growing demand to have it legalised. How far do you agree with euthanasia being made legal?

 Euthanasia, or mercy killing, has been a controversial issue for many years. Although many people are strongly against such a practice, there is a growing demand to have it legalised. How far do you agree with euthanasia being made legal?

A controversial proposal of making Euthansia, or mercy killing legal has been propounded by some, while others believe that this practice is inappropriate to be lawfully allowed. This makes it imperative to analyse both the sides of this debate, before delivering a justified conclusion.

To commence, this process can help the terminally-ill overcome their sufferings they have been facing and have lost all hope of recovering. Moreover, they spend many days in hospitals fighting the disease which increases the financial burden on their families and yet there is no surety of recovery. For instance, a boy in India was allowed to end the sufferings of four years of coma with no signs of recovery making the family free from the burden.

Besides this, this can also help the family to get emotional relief. Watching their beloved ones in pain and fighting for their life the  family members become emotionally vulnerable and feel miserable watching the torture on regular basis. Moreover, the kin can be relieved of the financial burden of having to keep their ailing member alive but with little hope of revival.  

However, there is a strong dissent regarding this act as it can lead to illegal use and fuel misuse. For instance, people may indulge in such acts just to get a hand over the property of terminally ill people on the pretext that they will not recover. In addition, life is a gift of god, and humans do not have any right to take it. 

In conclusion,I would say that this act should be discreetly used. In the cases where there are little chances of recovery it can act as a relief, but if used inappropriately, it may lead to severe consequences and abuse.

Nowadays larger distances are travelled by people to work and study on a daily basis. Some consider it to be a negative development, while others disagree. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Nowadays larger distances are travelled by people to work and study on a daily basis. Some consider it to be a negative development, while others disagree. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. 

A growing number of individuals are commuting longer than ever before, be it for professional or for educational commitments. An overwhelming majority deems this trend beneficial, while others consider it as detrimental. This essay shall delve deeper into both the perspectives and render a plausible conclusion.

Faster commuting mediums have allowed one to reside at a distance from job or place of education, and exposed them to a plethora of advantages such as being able to afford modern accommodations, quieter neighbourhoods, greener and cleaner surroundings while at the same time they can socialise with fellow commuters and indulge into hobbies such as listening music, movie watching and novel reading, all of which could not be possible at home or workplace. For instance, a survey conducted by the Delhi University reveals a staggering difference between expenditures of pupils and professionals living near posh spots than that of living at outskirts, wherein the latter spend only half - including cost of accommodation and travelling - of that of the former.

However, excessive travel drains the little energy one is left with as commuting is a strenuous activity and leaves no time for exercising and leisure. Individuals struggle to find time for their loved ones as the majority of their day goes in vain, traversing through busy roads, and crowded metros. Additionally, mitigation of emergency situations could be difficult as one needs to urgently arrange the means of assistance, which can be chaotic when the distance between places of residence and work, or education is vast. 

In hindsight, even though this evolution has its charm for all the perks it may seem to offer, the significance of pitfalls it brings along cannot be overlooked. Therefore, I wholeheartedly vouch for studying and working near such places.

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?

To check whether a product or procedure is suitable for human consumption, or not, is clinically tried on animals. This system is widely debatable; some say this is necessary and justified, while others disagree and suggest alternatives. Thus,  to reach a justified conclusion an imperative analysis is required.

To start with, this process is deemed to be necessary to ensure that humans do not have to suffer the consequences of unknown reactions of hazardous chemicals. If animals were not used in laboratories, it would become complicated to judge the consequences of a product and its use might jeopardize lives of people. 

In addition, the animals used in these tests are not exotic, are found in significant numbers, and are otherwise killed in other ways because they are considered pests and eliminated in millions every year. For instance, rats and monkeys, usually used as test subjects, are poisoned or shot by either farmers, municipalities and even people annually; they present a threat to human food, health and habitats. Therefore, it is quite justified to use them for clinical procedures.     

However, animal activists criticize this practice and profess that animals are the creation of nature, and humans do not have any right to harm them, or kill them, or cause them misery in any way. Nevertheless, even though many suggest using computer-aided simulation and human tissue cloning as alternatives to this, their reliability is highly questionable because they are in their infant stage and need more development. Thus, until then testing on animals must continue. 

In conclusion, I would say that animal testing is inevitable and plays a crucial role in scientific discoveries. However, to make this process more sophisticated and relieve animals of the pain of experiments, development of other ways should be speeded up.