As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs.

 As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs.

Incrementing vehicles mandates maintenance and expansion of road networks that has precipitated a thought provoking discourse over who should be bearing the onus of this: some argue that it should be policy makers, while others put the burden on motorists. I will examine both perspectives and draw a plausible conclusion.

Those vouching for the role of lawmakers in this endeavor argue that roads are meant for public good that benefit everyone, not just those plying personal vehicles. These facilitate the movement of goods and services, contributing to the overall economy by allowing businesses to function, enabling public transportation, and ensuring access to essential services like healthcare and education. Since everyone in society benefits indirectly from a well-maintained road system, regimes should fund it using public funds. For instance, rural areas with fewer drivers might not generate enough revenue from driver fees to maintain their roadways, necessitating government intervention to ensure fair distribution of resources. 

Nevertheless, those advocating for drivers covering the cost propose that it is only fair for them to pay for what they use. Increased usage leads to greater wear and tear on roads, meaning motorists directly contribute to the need of maintenance. Implementing road tolls is a potent way of ensuring a sustainable way to fund road repairs and expansion. Additionally, charging them for road use may encourage people to use public transportation, mitigating congestion and environmental damage. For example, in cities like London, congestion charges have been implemented to alleviate traffic snarls while generating revenues for road improvements. 

In my opinion, even though both the opinions are well-reasoned and are convincing, I feel this should be a joint responsibility as everyone benefits from the well-maintained infrastructure, wherein the state would reap economic benefits, and motorists  can obtain safer rides. 

Governments spend a lot of money on wildlife protection instead of starting new projects. Is this a positive or a negative trend? Give your opinion(in conclusion) and examples from your experience.

Governments spend a lot of money on wildlife protection instead of starting new projects. Is this a positive or a negative trend? Give your opinion(in conclusion) and examples from your experience.

Wildlife conservation programs aim to preserve biodiversity, protect endangered species and maintain ecosystems, vital for the health of the planet. However, some argue that this might impact other areas, such as infrastructure or healthcare. Exploring both perspectives shed light on whether this focus is justified.

Protecting wildlife is essential for ecological stability. Biodiversity ensures that natural processes, such as pollination, seed dispersal and soil fertility, continue smoothly, benefiting agriculture and food security. For instance, species such as bees, butterflies, and certain birds play crucial roles in pollinating crops, which are integral to food production. Additionally, safeguarding endangered animals helps maintain a balanced food chain, contributing to environmental sustainability. Moreover, wildlife tourism, which is often supported by conservation initiatives, boosts economies by attracting visitors. National parks countries like Kenya and Costa Rica draw millions of tourists, generating revenues and creating employment for local communities. 

Similarly, conserving wild fauna must be complemented  with preserving the exotic flora since green cover acts  as habitats for the former. This indirectly benefits all forms of life by act as lungs of the planet by recycling the air, by virtue of absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen, and also regulating the temperature, and inviting precipitation.    

 Nevertheless,  opponents suggest that focusing on wildlife preservation can divert resources for more immediate societal needs, affecting the ability of nations to establish improved infrastructure, healthcare or education systems, which arguably affects daily lives more directly. For example, this emphasis is likely to hinder allocation of funds for advanced transportation networks to help mitigate traffic congestion, pollution, and enhance economic productivity.  

In conclusion, while this policy might affect other sectors, I believe that investing in wildlife protection remains vital; the long-term benefits of preserving ecosystems contribute significantly to sustaining the hospitable planet.  

 

Too much attention is given to headline-grabbing disasters like earthquakes and floods. Government should concentrate their resources on educating people about the risk they face nearer to home, which can cost far more lives. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion.

Too much attention is given to headline-grabbing disasters like earthquakes and floods. Government should concentrate their resources on educating people about the risk they face nearer to home, which can cost far more lives. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion.

A debate has ensued in varied sections of society whether policy makers should pay attention towards common perils such as crimes, road accidents, domestic violence, and so on, jeopardizing human life rather than prioritizing natural calamities. Some accept it, while others reject it. I will critically scrutinize this notion and present my viewpoint in the following paragraphs.

 To start with, many are not enlightened about the menace, in myriad forms, that is ubiquitous,  and is threatening public safety, but can save themselves if they are informed about it well. For example, rash driving is one of the common hazards causing numerous deaths due reckless driving, and yet no one cares about such irresponsible behaviour. Similarly, trifle crimes are increasing such as chain snatching, assault, and theft, to name a few, posing a question mark on the well-propagated congenial social environment. To corroborate, Brazil  tops, as per the recently released reports, in the crime rate Index, where the population barely knows about their rights, resulting in a thirty five percent  surge  in crimes every year. Apart from that, preparing the populace for first aid, and  CPR is more important than focusing on disasters which happen once in a blue moon; this will help save millions of lives lost due to lack of fundamental emergency aids.

 Nevertheless, those skeptical about this idea advocate that policy makers should be prompt in educating people about the deadly disasters. For example, earthquakes, by virtue of striking unannounced, have the capacity to take millions of lives and destroy property worth billions, making it imperative to invest resources: emergency funds, housing, medical treatments, to help minimise the damage. They also suggest this can assist in mitigating casualties, for the populace residing in highly vulnerable areas will be able to embrace safeguards in case some natural event occurs.  

To recapitulate, I concur with this notion and opine that greater emphasis should be placed on educating the public about more frequent risk as they claim more lives, for which there is no record though naturally occurring catastrophes should not also be overlooked. 

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

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

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

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

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

• They will not be able to contribute to society 

  No. Why? 

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

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

Should wellbeing be considered a social obligation instead of personal good, is a perception that evokes mixed responses. However, I subscribe to the notion of sustaining wellness since a healthy and a safe environment is contingent on a sound health of citizens. 

Circumventing  disease and ailments can go a long way in helping society maintain and perpetuate economic productivity. Undeniably, the populace boasting of robust health can engage in every imaginable sector and industry of the economy by making contributions with their talent, skills and efforts, whereas an ailing community populated by sick individuals, drains resources and invaluable money raised from taxpayers and other venues, leaving little for development. Thus, it is an inescapable onus on everyone to keep themselves hale and hearty for the sake of their co-inhabitants.

Similarly, safeguarding oneself from infections and epidemics can help prevent the demography of a country from catastrophes and save innumerable lives, and in turn, avert (avoid) national tragedy of monumental dimensions. To corroborate, it was the collective ownership of shielding oneself from the virus of Corona by embracing precautions personally, aided in defeating seemingly unconquerable and contagious infection, which could have otherwise wreaked havoc.

Moreover, even though some do feel that the wellness is a personal matter; it is equated with autonomy and the ability to enjoy the exploits of hard work and experience satisfaction, the energy and vibes radiated by those in good health emanate positivity and enthusiasm that stimulate others to follow the suit and endeavor to keep themselves fit, thereby augmenting the national health and happiness index.  

In hindsight, it is indisputable that a community and nation, wherein every citizen is committed to the idea of maintaining their physical and mental wellbeing for societal welfare, registers an enduring progress and gains prosperity fast. 

People who decide on a career early in their lives and keep to it are more likely to have a satisfying working life than those who change jobs frequently. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

People who decide on a career early in their lives and keep to it are more likely to have a satisfying working life than those who change jobs frequently. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Undeniably, there is a profound debate raging among varied sections embracing an occupation early on, and staying with it lifelong fetches more contentment than switching employment regularly. I will critically analyze this notion in the following paragraphs and share my opinion.

To begin with, some profess that those choosing their career early and remaining with it, are more satisfied, for this helps render stability. Growth in the same organization is easier than struggling to find their promotions in other companies by changing jobs; companies often consider such individuals to be loyal and bestow them with numerous benefits. Besides this, with time they get to experience flexibility with their duties, roles and responsibilities, encouraging  them to stay with the same company. A survey revealed by interviewing employees from private, and government sectors, that seventy percent of personnel can earn better positions by continuing in the same organization for long.  

Nevertheless, there are some who oppose the former view and assert that shifting jobs quickly gives the exposure to enhance the skill sets and gain the experience. As a result, chances of promotions and increments are bolstered dramatically. For instance, those with versatile experience in different domains, are subjected to receive quick promotions, helping them climb to the management hierarchy since by virtue of becoming vulnerable to diverse work culture, they learn several skill sets,  broadening their professional horizons. It has been commonly observed that those working at vice president levels and higher positions, carry a rich exposure of engaging in disparate work environments, and engaging with a variety of responsibilities.   

To recapitulate, I vehemently  align myself with the latter view: this can fetch rewarding experience of working with different organizations and levels of industries, fostering better skill sets. 

Should long-term job-seekers in receipt of government benefits be made to do voluntary work so that they give something back to the community?

Should long-term job-seekers in receipt of government benefits be made to do voluntary work so that they give something back to the community?

Many governments provide financial assistance to people who have been  unemployed for a long time. Some people believe that these individuals should be required to do unpaid work in return, to contribute to society. This essay will discuss both sides of the argument and explain why this idea has both benefits and potential problems and shall analyze the notion of the motion. 

On the one hand, asking long-term job-seekers to do voluntary work can help both the community and the jobless. For instance, local organisations such as schools, hospitals, or charities often need extra help but have limited budgets. Job-seekers could support them by doing simple tasks like cleaning, organising events, or helping the elderly. This benefits the community and gives unemployed people useful work experience. It may also boost their confidence, teach them new skills, and make them more employable in the future.

On the other hand, making voluntary work compulsory could have negative effects. By definition, voluntary work should be done by choice, not by force. If people are made to work in return for their benefits, they might feel that they are being punished. In addition, not all unemployed people are physically or mentally fit to work. Some may have personal or family problems, health issues, or other barriers that make it difficult for them to take part in such programmes. Forcing them could lead to more stress and frustration.

In conclusion, while encouraging long-term unemployed people to do community work can have many benefits, it should not be mandatory. Governments should offer these opportunities as a way to support and motivate people, but they must also consider individual circumstances before making such work a requirement.

Many working people get little or no exercise either during the working day or in their free time, and have health problems as a result. Why do many working people not get enough exercise? What can be done about this problem?

Many working people get little or no exercise either during the working day or in their free time, and have health problems as a result. Why do many working people not get enough exercise? What can be done about this problem?

Nowadays, working  professionals are not indulging in physical endeavors during their work hours or even leisure time; consequently, they are facing poor health. The reason seems to stem from many factors, which shall be discussed in the following paragraphs, along with a few viable solutions.

A lobby strongly asserts that many are engrossed in their professional obligations owing to the stretched working hours and incrementing burden of meeting deadlines. This, as a result, leaves them with little time to engage in any kind of undertaking that requires working out physically.  Moreover, gyms and sports centers have annual fees which are exorbitantly priced, dissuading even the most enthusiastic from engaging in workouts or sports when  they have free time. For example, in Japan, many workers are disenchanted from performing any exercise, or partaking sports since the memberships for such activities cost several arms and several legs, so even if the facilities are at a stones’ throw distance from their home, they evade joining such pursuits.   

There are a number of solutions available at hand. Individuals should don the mantle, take some time out for themselves and start working out. This intrinsic motivation will aid in overcoming the tendency of circumventing physical activity. Additionally, governments could build free gyms and sports centers for citizens to stimulate the propensity to exercise regularly.  To corroborate, a recent survey revealed that the lawmakers in the UK, have established free gyms for the residents in neighborhood parks, which has helped to persuade even the most reluctant residents of neighborhoods to exercise. 

In conclusion, overwhelming engagement in work, and  expensive subscription of gyms and sports activities are demotivating individuals to workout. The possible solutions are internal motivation, taking time out for oneself, and governments extending free services: gyms and sports centers.  

Nowadays we are creating more and more rubbish. Why do you think this is happening? What can Governments do to help reduce the amount of rubbish produced? Give reasons for your answers and give relevant examples from your experience?

Nowadays we are creating more and more rubbish. Why do you think this is happening? What can Governments do to help reduce the amount of rubbish produced? Give reasons for your answers and give relevant examples from your experience?

Undeniably, it has always been a pressing concern among societies regarding the increment of garbage. There are multiple reasons for this trend, but policy makers can play a pivotal role in controlling it. I shall analyze causes and remedies in the following paragraphs.

To begin with, a school of thought opines that the rising amount of refuse is due to umpteen reasons:  people are quite busy in their daily routines, and do not pay attention towards cleanliness. They are not much aware about the side-effects of having garbage spread outside their homes.  Beside these, industries keep on manufacturing plastic bottles as there is a high demand for these; people tend to consume them more and discard them without reusing them. Moreover,  businesses try to refine their products,  and in an attempt, they produce more residue that is discharged without being recycled.  

To surmount/overcome  this challenge, environmental authorities can take initiatives to control hazardous problems:  enlightening citizens about the benefits of clean surroundings through advertising and campaigns,  and disseminating information about taking necessary actions to halt spreading waste and control over plastic usage, and more importantly recycling, so that the public can become aware of the relevance of this practice in preventing the proliferation of waste. . 

Furthermore, policy makers should levy excessive taxes on the manufacturing of plastic products; as a result, industries would minimize the production and start taking this seriously. For instance, a survey conducted by the California environmental department revealed that eighty percent of the population has stopped spreading wastage after taxes imposed upon them.  

To capitulate, I vehemently profess that the public and government both are equally responsible to reduce the waste and sustain nature. If they can work together, they would get an appropriate result for the safe and clean environment. 

A balanced diet or eating balanced meals is the key to healthy life. In what extent do you agree or disagree?

A balanced diet or eating balanced meals is the key to healthy life. In what extent do you agree or disagree?

In contemporary times, sustaining a robust health is a priority for all, and a perception is that only nourishment laden with appropriate amounts of ingredients is central to wellness. Some subscribe to this notion, while others challenge it. I will analyse both the views and share a plausible conclusion. 

To start with, those who advocate eating healthy assert that meals containing  sufficient quantities of minerals and vitamins provide all the nutrition to the human body for functioning properly. It also bolsters the immune system, aiding the body to fend itself against infections and ailments. Moreover, the right amount of carbohydrates, vitamins, proteins and minerals afford energy, enabling the physiological system to work ceaselessly. A research conducted in California University revealed that those taking proper diet feel energetic the entire day and their learning and productivity curve is higher than those not prioritising striking a balance between their requirements and intake, confirming the validity of the phrase “ You are what you eat.” 

Nevertheless, others argue and suggest diet alone is not enough, physical exercise is also an integral part of healthy life. Just ingesting appropriate ingredients and nutrients  does not augment robust health: this cannot help in controlling weight, building muscle or managing stress levels. Physical exertion can assist greatly. Moreover, exercise also helps in removing the genetic disorders such as high BP, sugar, and thyroid, among others. To exemplify: Health Organization of India reported that after integrating exercise in their daily regimes, sixty percent of diabetic patients have stopped taking insulin and forty percent are thyroid free.

To summarize, I partially agree with this statement. Undoubtedly, a diet loaded with sufficient nutrients is necessary, but one should not overlook the benefits of physical exercise in terms of extending a disease-free life. 

Nowadays people are spending too much money to celebrate personal and family events such as weddings, birthdays and so on. Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Give your opinion and examples.

Nowadays people are spending too much money to celebrate personal and family events such as weddings, birthdays and so on. Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Give your opinion and examples.

There is a profound debate among varied sections that spending a humongous amount on special events has become culture today, while others dissent with this notion. I shall elucidate my opinions in the following paragraphs.

To begin with, the former group believes that incurring expenses on occasions such as birthdays, marriages, and anniversaries, to  name a few, has become a norm. It has become the fashion; people doing such extravagant things to flaunt their status among their relatives, by virtue of this they start using their savings to celebrate such big and small events by spending plenty of money on arrangements, clothes, return gifts, arranging magic shows, choreographers, singers in the celebrations, just to exhibit their living standards.

 Nevertheless, a school of thought asserts that money has always been a big concern; it is hard earned money, therefore, it is difficult to spend such amounts on special events, though groups of people do celebrate their functions but do not spend huge amounts as their budget gets disturbed, leaving them with little to invest into other more critical areas such as education. One  thinks twice before spending a single penny. For example, every family has their own budget and to survive better, people must save money for emergencies, they do double shifts to earn the money, think for the future of their offspring; thus, they think twice before taking any action for celebrating such big events.

To recapitulate, I vehemently profess that spending colossally on special events, even of little relevance, is although a personal choice, it is becoming rarer since the focus has shifted to sustain a comfortable lifestyle, instead of squandering resources on brief moments of merriment. 

In some countries the percentage of 15-year-olds in the population is already significant and is continuing to grow. Are there more advantages or disadvantages to this trend?

In some countries the percentage of 15 year-olds in the population is already significant and is continuing to grow. Are there more advantages or disadvantages to this trend?

Merits 

• A bright future for society since it will have an abundance of able-bodied adults to serve strategic sectors of economy. 

• This also promises innovation, new ideas and also continued enthusiasm  to attain new goals in every walk of life. 

• The society will see more and more sporting personalities rising to prominence. 

• Increase in tax payer base in next 5 to 6 years, helping raise the revenues of governments 

• More people will be available to take care of those in their autumn years. (old people)

• More economic productivity by virtue of these people consuming more and more goods   and services. 

Demerits 

• increased outlay on  higher education and ancillary facilities 

• Rise in pollution. 

• Expected multiplication in the population over the next few decades, compelling governments to plan money intensive programs to bolster the rising populace 

• Rise in crime is a common phenomenon experienced in several societies

Undoubtedly, there is a fierce debate regarding the increment of the ratio of teenagers in the populace; some assert that this phenomenon/trend is associated with umpteen benefits, while others dissent to the former notion. I shall elucidate its pros and cons in the following paragraphs.

To begin with, the modern school of thought professes that this is likely to bring humongous pros, especially for the high-tech industries since these youngsters are growing in an era dominated by advanced technology, and are expected to consume it in myriads of forms tomorrow, precipitating a bright  future for those engaged in inventing, producing and selling the state-of-the-art equipment. Consequently, the economic activity would also receive a boost since the rising use of apparatus  and other tools will not only stipulate higher production that would churn out more jobs but also result in more trade. 

Also, such a trend is likely to present brighter prospects for the state when it comes to supporting the ageing populace and funding developmental projects: as these individuals grow up, they will work, and pay taxes, and policy makers will be able to use the revenues raised to bolster those in their autumn years through pensions and health support, and also for establishing initiatives aimed at developing society: transport, education, communications. Above all, this sector of population would don the role of professionals: doctors, teachers, and so on,  besides serving in law enforcement and military forces, serving society with their skills for its betterment. 

Nevertheless, other lobby opines that this phenomenon would precipitate higher pollution, for instance, in the coming future, these growing individuals would use vehicles more and more, and heighten pollution of all kinds: air, noise, and so on, thereby significantly impacting the environment, the health of people. Moreover, investments would have to be incremented into  creating an elaborate educational infrastructure to educate this greater proportion. On top of that, the likelihood of crimes becoming ubiquitous/common would also witness a surge, deepening/ making worse the woes of society. 

 

To recapitulate, I vehemently agree with the former perception and believe that the advantages of the growing ratio of adolescents outweigh the disadvantages. New generation will be smarter and capable enough to contribute to the economy of the country. 

Many people believe that eighteen years old is the appropriate age to finish school. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Many people believe that eighteen years old is the appropriate age to finish school. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Education lays a solid foundation for personal and social growth globally. Some argue that it should be age appropriate: up to eighteen  years, to facilitate other important endeavours in life, while others disapprove of this. This matter, in my view, needs to be critically analysed.

To begin with, juveniles should finish their formative education at eighteen because the curriculum is designed according to the age and intellectual ability of young minds; as they grow up, they develop analytical, problem-solving and interpersonal skills, required, for their later life, in several areas like higher education, training, employment and business. For example, in India, those completing high school obtain better opportunities by attaining correct academic qualifications, and hence, can become doctors, professors, engineers, and so forth, early in their lives.

Nevertheless,  a lobby questions the former notion and believes that many in professions such as  artists or players, can pursue their desired occupations, after receiving a certain level of schooling and can successfully achieve their ambitions, so completing formal learning is not a hard and fast rule. For example, several renowned cricketers and actors work sixteen hours a day from an early stage, and rarely visit schools regularly, and complete higher secondary through distance education systems later. Similarly, not all learners grow at the same pace in academics due to differences in learning abilities, so they join family entrepreneurship, or are enrolled in vocational training, and as a result, earn better success than their schoolgoing counterparts.

To conclude, I opine that even though schooling is imperative, it should not be a norm for all; some can accomplish their goals even without completing high school. There have been several instances, wherein youngsters have earned success without visiting school for the complete tenure of twelve years.  

 

Children often find it difficult to study mathematics and philosophy. Some people think that these subjects should be optional in the study curriculum. Do you agree or disagree? Give your opinion and examples from your own experience.

Children often find it difficult to study mathematics and philosophy. Some people think that these subjects should be optional in the study curriculum. Do you agree or disagree? Give your opinion and examples from your own experience.

Making Mathematics and philosophy elective rather than compulsory part of syllabus is a suggestion that has invited a fierce debate because while some support it, others reject it. I feel learners should enjoy the leverage to study or abandon these subjects since these could impact their academic outcomes favorably.

This suggestion is founded on the belief that exploring these two topics is mentally taxing for many pupils as they are unable to comprehend complicated theories and formulas and are found spending invariably long hours attempting to familiarize themselves with the subject matter unsuccessfully. This can be quite despiriting and unfavourably impact their academic pursuits, in the form of poor outcomes; they get less time to focus on other areas. In extreme cases, many also tend to drop schooling altogether. Similarly, affording them this liberty will let them invest their energy into the subjects that appeal to them and excel in those realms. Such a system will not only translate into outstanding performance in studies but also allow learners to consolidate their knowledge for their desired professional domains. To corroborate, western countries have implemented this policy and reaped rich benefits, in the form of trade-specific specialists being produced quickly. However, those skeptical about this arrangement fear that this might impact overall development of youngsters adversely: maths helps foster logic, while philosophy provides the ability to think deeply, and avoiding these areas could deprive students of these critical abilities. Nevertheless, these disciplines can be retained as a part of study plan till middle school and later abandoned: advanced knowledge of these subjects is not necessary.

In hindsight, exploring maths and philosophy at school should be mandatory up to a certain level and later learners should be allowed to exercise their discretion, to study these, or not to.

Humans tend to copy one another, especially in fashion, choice of clothes and consumer goods. Do you agree or disagree? Provide your view and examples from your own experience.

Humans tend to copy one another, especially in fashion, choice of clothes and consumer goods. Do you agree or disagree? Provide your view and examples from your own experience.

 

Ever since mankind appeared on this planet, it has been perceived as emulating peers, while some dissent with this notion. I shall critically analyze this matter, elucidate my views in the following paragraphs.

Some profess that everyone tries to imitate celebrities, elite groups, and so on, to sustain their image. They feel that emulating ways of living in terms of clothes, fashion and products used by public idols would afford them an up-to-date social status. This pattern can be observed among all age groups:  youngsters and elders. Moreover, some attempt following precedents/footsteps/examples of the elite: communities, neighbors, and even relatives, in order to be considered at par with them. For instance, the population tries to copy the fashion trends of USA citizens just to make themselves feel rich, trendy and different from the middle class group.  A survey conducted by Global Fashion magazine revealed that a majority of youngsters, globally, have been witnessed imitating fashion styles of the USA population: this helps them to highlight perceived sophistication among their relatives and friends.

Nevertheless, the other school of thought debunks the former notion and asserts everyone is born with typical tastes, and rarely emulates others. They have their own style, they have been following for a long time, by virtue of which they feel confident. They consider being influenced by others as  disparaging, and attempt staying clear of habits of imitating their peers. Additionally,  some are more akin to sustaining their family budgets, rather than being extravagant in an attempt to ape others  

To recapitulate, I vehemently agree with the former view that the habit of imitating others for leading a better life is a common propensity. However, one must think logically while copying others, and embrace this habit as per their circumstances.  

Doctors recommend that older people exercise regularly. However, many of them do not get enough exercise. What are the reasons? What can be done to encourage them to exercise more?

Doctors recommend that older people exercise regularly. However, many of them do not get enough exercise. What are the reasons? What can be done to encourage them to exercise more?

Exercise is a powerful medium to sustain physical and mental wellness. However, the aged generally abstain from such activities. In the upcoming paragraphs, I shall discuss the impediments preventing participation in such endeavors, and ways to motivate them.

To start with, there are umpteen reasons as to why baby boomers are not interested in doing physical exercise: most of them have already been suffering from disorders like joint pains, arthritis and other issues, making them more vulnerable to muscle and back sprains, or other chronic issues, a common complaint among those in their autumn years. It has been also observed that they get scared to perform exercise because of the unfavorable experiences reported by others, especially their peers.  On top of that, lack of access to proper places and equipment, or facilities, are other  factors which contribute more to making people careless about their health.

However, there are myriads of suggestions to persuade senior citizens to engage in such physical undertakings: Governments should open the yoga centers, specifically designed for older people where they can do practice as per their requirement in terms of health and time. Likewise,  there should be community halls in all the sectors, so that these people can create groups and enjoy the activities together. Moreover, the younger generation must also take initiative to keep their parents and grandparents fit  by indulging them in light exercise, and fun activities with little excursion to keep them stress free and out of loneliness. 

In hindsight, the fear of injuries and absence of appropriate facilities is fueling disenchantment from physical workouts, but both policymakers and individual efforts can play an essential role to make it successful. Only creating yoga centers is not enough, one has to come forward to exploit it to remain healthy.

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

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

 Some profess that it is the responsibility of the state to preserve nature, while some are with the notion that this is the collective effort, the public at large should intervene, as well. This essay shall delve deeper into this matter and emanate a partial agreement on this notion. 

Those who uphold the opinion that it is the sole duty of the policy makers to take measures to ensure that the planet remains hospitable, feel that they are elected to take decisions on behalf of citizens, to afford a safe living condition, and life-supporting ecology forms one of those components; hence, it is their job to surmount this challenge. 

Moreover, they have the jurisdiction to make policies and statutes to help mitigate destruction of the planet, and these laws are followed by the masses without reluctance;  as they are aware that non-compliance will fetch them severe consequences such as penal punishments, pushing them to environmentally  friendly practices.  Similarly,  lawmakers have a broader global perspective about this menace,  as well as resources to coordinate with other nations to develop strategies that can help reduce deterioration of the ecology.   

However, some suggest that the power lies with individuals to make constant changes that protect nature: they are the foundation and a root cause of this imbroglio. Thus, they must share the onus. For instance,  if individuals, at their own devices,  adapt to using environmentally-friendly methods,  they will help engender sustainable methods at all levels, stimulating business to eco-friendly techniques.   

To conclude, undeniably, regimes enjoy an overwhelming influence on citizens and have a profound knowledge of the causes and tools that can help mitigate environmental damage, nonetheless people cannot shirk away from sharing this responsibility, for they are the ones who can help make policies effective.    

Some people say that no one should work after the age of 65, others say that anyone should be able to continue working as long as they wish. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people say that no one should work after the age of 65, others say that anyone should be able to continue working as long as they wish. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Undeniably, there is a fierce debate among varied sections that one should not be allowed after attaining the age of 65, while others dissent with the notion and support the freedom of work in any age. I shall critically analyze this matter, and elucidate my views in the following paragraphs.

To begin with, a school of thought professes that engaging professionally beyond 65 should not be allowed. After working for almost 30 years people need rest, for they have compromised their invaluable moments for their children, earning bread and butter, and have been busy in establishing the future of their wards and their careers. Therefore, there must be some law, allowing them to take rest from their duties. After all, they need to spend some quality time with their family and friends, and also focus on their own hobbies, which they never got a chance to engage with.

Nevertheless, the other lobby disregards the former views and asserts that there must be a freedom to work, irrespective of any age. In the globalization era, everyone should be free to make their own decisions to attain their wishes. Similarly,  maintaining the standard of living makes it  mandatory to work to sustain their families. Moreover, businesses and industries need experienced individuals  to guide their organizations to prosperity. Thus, if seasoned employees excel in a particular domain, they can prove to be big assets as they can share their learnings with the team. 

To recapitulate, I vehemently agree with the latter view that the government should not restrict the age limit to work, it must be the individual prerogative instead: if someone is capable of weathering stress, they should be allowed to continue with employment. 

 

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

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

Undeniably, there has always been a fierce debate that sports shows of men have always been given priority over that of women. There are several reasons driving this imbalance. I shall critically analyze this matter and elucidate my views regarding equality being allocated to both the genders in the following paragraphs.

To begin with, some profess that since early times the population of men have always been prioritized in all sectors despite the fact that women have excelled in all domains. Therefore, not only family members discriminate against gender but also there are other influencing factors influenced: media, schools and governments, to name a few, paying attention to all domains of males, and giving importance to their performances, skill sets, and efforts. Moreover, females have always been put at second choice positions, and thus, media also gives precedence(preference) sports such as cricket, basketball, and so on, performed by men.  

Nevertheless, a school of thought asserts that women have been performing efficiently in all realms, they have been seen working at the highest level of the position in all sectors:  sports, corporate, politics, and fashion industry, among others, at global level, and  hence, deserve the same respect as men do. Affording them similar  air time would promote this branch of sports, and create employment among females, in the form of players, coaches, sports consultants, and so on, not only creating new job venues for this sex but also multiplying economic activity, resulting out of serving the growing requirements of women sports practitioners and their teams.  

To hindsight, I vehemently believe that in the contemporary era, equality must be extended to both the genders, in terms of allowing similar times to sporting events to the female branch also: it will help yield rich returns.   

Popular Hobbies and interests change over time and are more a reflection of trends and fashion than an indication of what individuals really want to do in their spare time. To what extent do you agree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer.

Popular Hobbies and interests change over time and are more a reflection of trends and fashion than an indication of what individuals really want to do in their spare time.
To what extent do you agree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer.

Contemporary times have been witnessing significant changes in favorite pastimes that rather indicate influences such as current vogue, wherein one follows celebrities  and emulates them. I disagree with the statement, and feel that most engage in freetime activities they like the most.

Those believing that leisure time undertakings are impacted by concurrent forces, profess that some, especially youngsters, are propelled by the innate human  propensity to emulate popular public figures. They browse social media applications and observe celebrities endorsing certain undertakings, promoted as pastime, luring their audience to jump into the bandwagon. For instance, most of the adventure sports such as white water rafting, scuba diving, and so on, as elite free time haunts, and the fashionable youngsters tend to toe the line, and embrace these as their engagements. The growing number of  participants in dangerous sports in various corners of the globe clearly highlight this.  

However, it would be inaccurate to claim that freetime undertakings are underpinned by concurrent forces: barring a few fashionable and wealthy, most are driven by their long-standing interests, personal talents, or intense motivations. Notably, a majority are passionate about painting, playing musical instruments, or hiking, prefer to continue with these endeavors to draw a sense of satisfaction, and break the mundane. Moreover, those using modern means to practice their favorite recreational undertakings do it since they can use these to fulfill their desire without compromising their essential duties. To corroborate, many play games on playstations today instead of traditional boards since they lack time to devote to such tasks, and meet others, due to their hectic schedules.  

To conclude, I believe that except a few, most are inclined to engage in hobbies that complement their desires, and are not swayed by external influences to alter their area of interest. 

Some countries produce their own films, while others do not. What are the reasons for this? Is it a positive or a negative development?

Some countries produce their own films, while others do not. What are the reasons for this? Is it a positive or a negative development?

Reasons for some countries not producing their own movies 

• Some societies lack resources: expertise, modern technology and money 

• Some face impediments in terms of having limited audience 

• Some cultures do not allow such entertainment 

• Chaotic social environment 

Benefits 

• Global perspectives enrich local psyche 

• Lead to cultural reinvention 

Drawbacks 

• Can hamper cultural perpetuation and result in cultural invasion instead 

• Impedes local creativity 

• Loss of economic opportunities 

• Impact tourism negatively 

It is quite intriguing that despite movies becoming a ubiquitous form of entertainment, some parts of the world have chosen to abstain from producing local content. This lack of inclination may be fueled by economic or social factors, but this makes society vulnerable to cultural invasion.

At the outset, the most prominent underlying aspect underpinning reluctance to bolster home-grown production of motion pictures is the orthodox social environment that forbids the local populace from engaging in creation of any such material; it is believed any involvement with this modern medium might fetch them the wrath of their ancestors and bring them bad omen. To exemplify, numerous countries in the Middle- east and North-Africa have enacted laws to circumscribe/ban such activities. 

Similarly, even some liberal regions are unable to produce their own cinema owing to paucity of resources and financial feasibility. Admittedly, they face an acute shortage of modern equipment, expertise, and sufficient audience to receive and view local creations, making it onerous to justify the colossal investments in relation to the anticipated returns, thereby discouraging such endeavors. 

However, although some might uphold this unwillingness as praiseworthy, depriving the local populace of films made within the country means opening doors to forays by cultural aspirations brought in by foreign pictures which could result in dilution of native ways of life and beliefs. Moreover, this attitude is likely to rob citizens of opportunities of gaining employment and business created by the film production sector based within the country.  

To conclude, this propensity of not having home-based movie productions is supported by absence  of an appropriate environment; having said that, it is laden with a plethora of complications that could lead to disappearance of local customs and beliefs, and thus, I consider it to be detrimental.