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. 

Some people think parents should read or tell stories to their children, others say it is not important and can be replaced by watching TV and movies instead. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people think parents should read or tell stories to their children, others say it is not important and can be replaced by watching TV and movies instead. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Modernization has become a reason for various changes and advancements. Owing to this, people are accepting a change from offline stories to online movies. Some critics oppose this and have a notion that parents should rely on offline story reading to their children. This makes it necessary for an imperative analysis of both the notions before giving any conclusion. 

There is a profound debate over whether people should narrate stories to their wards, or this task can be superseded by television and movies. There are mixed views on this issue, and the following paragraphs shall discuss this matter critically before reaching a well-reasoned conclusion. 

The age-old tale-telling ritual can help foster healthy relationships between two generations. Moreover, this way parents can keep an eye on the knowledge being imparted to their progeny, which they might not be able to monitor if the little ones watch TVs and movies instead. Additionally, this practice can encourage tender minds to learn to visualize stories while listening, stimulating their brain development. For instance, a fairy tale about sleeping beauty whenever narrated to a girl child persuades her to envision herself as the beauty, bolstering her imagination in the process.

However, some suggest that this conventional arrangement can be replaced by modern means: TV and films. This mode is economical and can present fresh and exciting content aimed at juveniles regularly, saving people from finding new plots everyday, spending on buying books, and creating space to store them. For instance, nowadays, television programs and movies are capable of delivering new plots frequently. 

Additionally, the mixture of graphic and music is exciting for growing minds and promotes enthusiasm among them to learn new things. For instance, rhymes impart knowledge in a playful way by combining attractive visuals and information that are adapted as per young minds, and have a lasting impact on the young audience. 

In conclusion, I feel that parents should continue with this traditional activity, and at the same time they should also expose their offspring to movies and TVs as it helps develop better learning power. Nevertheless, movies and TV should be monitored to ensure quality exposure.  

In the past children often played outdoor games with their friends. Nowadays children often connect with their friends online. Is this a positive or a negative development?

In the past children often played outdoor games with their friends. Nowadays children often connect with their friends online. Is this a positive or a negative development?

Of late, technology has developed rapidly, and has persuaded youngsters to connect with their friends through virtual games rather than outdoor ones. This change can have both negative and positive aspects, so to provide a justified conclusion it is imperative to analyse both the aspects critically.

Recent years have witnessed harsh climatic conditions, owing to which virtually connecting with friends is beneficial as it saves youngsters from unfavorable weather conditions. In addition, the crime rate has surged due to which the outdoors have become unsafe for children, but engaging in online games keeps them out of harm’s way.  For instance, kidnapping has become a major menace in some parts of India, compelling people to prevent their progeny from going outside, and in these circumstances, virtual games have helped them connect with their friends. 

On top of that, virtual games promote connectivity despite different locations and provide more exposure to connect globally. Additionally, this engagement is helping them become technology literate, capable of handling modern devices right from a young age, and  this could prove to be extremely beneficial for them as adults later.  

However, relying on virtual games hampers the physical health of children and makes them lethargic. In addition, these also affect them mentally and they get addicted to the internet. For instance, recently a game became quite popular amongst the youngsters, turning them into compulsive users and overlooking other essential tasks. Furthermore, forgoing outdoor games prevents them from learning  about various skills: teamspirit and  developing coordination, making  them socially inactive and incapable of connecting with others effectively.   

To summarise, I would say that it is important to adapt to technological changes, and despite having some drawbacks, this shift is favorable, but it is necessary to strike a balance between both endeavors. 

Access to clean water is a basic human right. Therefore, every home should receive a water supply free of charge. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Access to clean water is a basic human right. Therefore, every home should receive a water supply free of charge.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Why free water 

• Water is as critical as food and shelter, so it should be extended free 
• Most diseases spread through and the poor cannot pay for accessing potable water 
• Empower the poor 
• People pay taxes, and thus should receive water free  

Why not free 

• This resource,which is already dwindling, may become prone to misuse 
• Erecting infrastructure for clean water needs constant maintenance 
• Modernization and improvement may not become possible 

Generally, it is propounded that the government should provide accessible water facilities to the citizens for their good. However, this notion is debatable and has its own pros and cons which are essential to be assessed to give a justified conclusion. In the essay I would assess such notions.

Water is the basic need of an individual and is considered as important as air, food and shelter. This act of government can provide destitutes an equal access which they might not be able to afford because of their financial condition. In addition to this, citizens are the tax payers, and thus, it is their right to get access to clean water in reciprocation. Moreover, by providing free water supply to the citizens, the government can keep control over the disease that might spread. For instance, if clean water is not  provided to them free of cost, they will be forced to use contaminated water which is the major cause of diseases which are being spread.

However, this provision could lead to severe complications. The most prominent being people starting to take this amenity for granted, and started wasting it, exacerbating the problem of an already dwindling resource.  Moreover, this would create a dearth of funds required for sustaining the quality and incorporating modernization in the water infrastructure; this  privilege will force the state to divert money to render free of charge potable water supply, causing a shortage of resources for upgradation of services, and thereby, causing a deterioration in the quality of water.     

In conclusion, I partially agree with this proposal. Free access to water should be only afforded to the impoverished population sectors, and rest should be charged. Also, a cap on free facility should be put in place to prevent misuse.  

Some say it is important for parents to teach their children about the importance of money. Why and how should they do it? Include examples from your own experience.

Some say it is important for parents to teach their children about the importance of money. Why and how should they do it? Include examples from your own experience.

Money is critical for survival, and it is commonly suggested that educating young ones about the significance of money is really important. This essay shall analyse the importance of this teaching, and ways to do it. 

Children get easily influenced by the possessions held by their elite peers, which makes them believe that money is easy to earn. Moreover, advertisements and celebrities about expensive products influence young minds, and thus, they start making demands for them by taking money for granted. For instance, the advertisement of expensive hot wheels instead of an ordinary toy car influenced tender minds which ultimately created pressure on parents also. 

On top of that, over pampering children and getting them whatever they demand makes them overlook the relevance of this resource, and turn into demanding individuals. In addition, it is important for people to make their progeny aware about usage of money so that they become thrifty spenders instead of careless spenders.

Several ways can be used to deliver this teaching to little ones. They can be given some pocket money for the whole month and told to buy everything they want with that money only, and account for it later. Furthermore, taking them to places where the destitute live would make them aware about the significance of saving this critical resource. Additionally, engaging them in monthly budgetary exercise and other critical financial decisions can go a  long way. Moreover, parents should set precedents by sacrificing some of their needs, so that their littles ones get the right message. 

In conclusion, I would say that parents should not neglect their duty of making their child aware about the importance of money, and judicious methods should be used to enlighten youngsters about being thrifty spenders. 

Establishment of superstores has resulted in closure of small shops. Is it a positive or negative development?

Establishment of superstores has resulted in closure of small shops. Is it a positive or negative development?

In contemporary times, due to the establishment of superstores and provision of various commodities at one place has become possible. This development up to some extent had led to closure of small shops. To comment on the type of development, it is imperative to analyse both negative and positive aspects.

Large-format departmental outlets provide ease to customers as they can shop for all the products they desire at one place, whereas small shops cannot maintain the variety, because they are locally owned with less investment. Moreover, products with different qualities and prices can be standardised and found under one roof. These establishments work at a large level and procure goods in bulk from manufacturers directly, making it possible for them to get things at relatively cheaper prices. For instance, many superstores such as D-mart have large supply chains which make it possible for their merchandise to sell at lower prices, in the form of discounts and offers. Furthermore, owing to their large scale operation, these establishments provide skilled employment to people and create jobs. Additionally, they have helped to organise the retail sector and their operations,allowing governments to raise revenues.  

However, these establishments have caused various problems to people as these stores are not conveniently located, forcing people to buy large quantities at once, interrupting their budget. Additionally, these stores have complicated rules, making exchange and return of products once brought, nearly impossible. Likewise, small shops used to offer credit and friendly bonds to people, but this culture is not promoted by departmental stores, and thus credit facilities are no longer available. 

In conclusion, I would say it is a beneficial evolution as it helps shoppers to get better deals and shop with comfort. It has also helped organize retail structure and create employment. 

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 both views and give your opinion.

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 both views and give your opinion.

It is commonly suggested that ensuring communal well being is possible by making fresh fruits and vegetables more affordable, while some think making unhealthy nutrition costly by imposing extra levies can fetch better outcomes. I opine that blending both the ways can produce desired results.

Olicymakers partially funding agricultural produce can go a long way in convincing the populace to switch to a wholesome diet, allowing them to consume appropriate amounts of nutrients. A majority of people, especially youngsters, and those hailing from middle or lower income groups, tend to resort to easily and cheaply obtainable edible goods: fast food, and so forth, since fresh and natural nourishment is out of their reach. However, if the latter is made economical, many will be stimulated to use these. To corroborate, some districts in  Sweden launched pilot projects on these lines, and reported resounding success as citizens overwhelmingly welcomed this move. Consequently, this scheme was permanently adopted as a law. 

Nevertheless, raising the prices of edible products packed with harmful ingredients by taxing them excessively, could induce consumers to forgo such goods; these will be out of reach of the most, and many will be forced to shift to nutritious alternatives. For instance, Singapore enforced a four hundred percent tax on gluten-laden hamburgers, leading to steep decline in their sales. Similarly, this will also persuade manufacturers to reduce injurious ingredients from their produce. To exemplify, when the UK government instituted heavy charges on crisps containing MSG, the manufacturers responded by completely eliminating this component from their products.  

In conclusion, using a combination of both these policies: persuasive and coercive methods can guarantee coaxing people to embrace healthy eating habits, and circumvent food-driven ailments, engendering a healthy and productive society; eventually, turning it competitive. 

 

Nowadays many people are trying to earn more and more to get rich. What are the advantages and disadvantages of being rich?

Nowadays many people are trying to earn more and more to get rich. What are the advantages and disadvantages of being rich?    

Contemporary times are witnessing a rising craving to amass as much wealth as possible since this can bring umpteen benefits. Nonetheless, this can also expose one to several challenges.This essay shall analyze both the aspects profoundly and share a plausible conclusion. 

To start with, undeniably, affluence allows one to afford themselves and their family members a luxurious lifestyle that has all imaginable amenities, and facilities, and comforts, money can buy such as a big house, high-end cars, state-of-the art gadgets, and equipment such as televisions, kitchen appliances, so on, and other facilities. Moreover, one can also go on expensive vacations to exotic destinations, and also visit up market hotels, and restaurants to dine lavishly. These factors fetch unparalleled satisfaction in life. 

Besides this, having enough monetary resources fuels confidence about the future as it becomes possible to arrange for an excellent education for the next generation. For instance, the rich can enroll their wards in elite schools and universities can deliver up-to-date education, to help choose a progressive career in future. Also, something can be kept aside for emergencies like medical, and life after retirement, when one needs financial resources the most.

However, there are some darker shades of being wealthy; it has been observed that such individuals are always under the threat from criminals, regularly pursuing them for ransom, and protection money. On top of that, one is always under the pressure to maintain their status, for which they have to really work hard day, and night.

To conclude, even though having a huge fortune is surely a desired possession, it also carries its own set of complications. Therefore, one must be prudent enough to strike a right balance between experiencing benefits, and overcoming pitfalls of this status, to enjoy the resources adjectively.     

Do the advantages of private means of transportation such as cars and motorbikes outweigh the disadvantages of public transport (trains, buses and taxis)? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your own experience.

Do the advantages of private means of transportation such as cars and motorbikes outweigh the disadvantages of public transport (trains, buses and taxis)? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your own experience.

There is a profound debate about the issue that private means offer more benefits  than drawbacks of public transit. This matter needs to be closely analyzed before ascertaining the validity of this notion. 

Convenience is the major benefit that personal conveyance offers. People, today,  are more time-oriented and these means allow them to begin their journey at any time as per their requirements. They do not need to wait or schedule their journey  to start when accessing mass transit. For example, most urbanites across the world report preferring using their personal four, or two-wheelers since they can plan their journeys that complement their obligations and their moods. 

Furthermore, safety is another aspect that makes the use of personal  automobiles more advantageous since childrens and womens can travel even at midnight without any worrying about their and the safety of their belongings. On the other hand, one needs to look after their luggage and safety while using a bus or train service. To illustrate, as per Newsweek most families prefer cars over trains or buses when it comes to traveling with women, youngsters and the elderly since their own means extend unprecedented safety from strangers and criminals,  and their baggage can stay away from damage.   

However, communal transit offers numerous unprecedented benefits: it is the cheapest mode and one can easily travel within budget. In addition, people do not need to worry about any damages to their transport, tickets, and traffic jams and snarls. Furthermore, it does not affect the environment when compared with private vehicles because too many people can travel together.

To end the discussion, quite contrary to the belief the favors fetched by public modes are far more than those offered by private modes, by virtue of being eco-friendly and cost-effective.  

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. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

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. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Motorists? Why 

• It is them who need this service. They are in the minority and a majority suffers because of them. The traffic snarls and increased carbon footprint are a result of increased number of cars 
• This will have a direct impact on number of cars, such a levy will 
• people from buying cars 

The state? Why 

• People are paying taxes, especially care owners are being levied sales tax, road tax, pollution tax, toll tax and so on
• Better roads will encourage people to travel more (and buy more cars) creating economic activity.

   It is often debated that regimes should take the onus of maintaining, and expanding, road infrastructure, while others dissent and profess that it should be borne by motorists. I will analyze both sides of this argument profoundly, and share a plausible conclusion.

Lawmakers should take charge for providing the best to citizens because owners of vehicles are already contributing in the form of various taxes from the moment they buy their own conveyance: levies to run their car on the road:  pollution tax, toll tax, road tax, among others. Thus, it becomes the duty of policy makers to make all the arrangements for better motorways, so that road users should not face any kind of hassle while traveling.  

Moreover, these roads are not just being used by motorists  but also others plying on them for seeking education, health services, and many more. To exemplify, a study by an eminent economist of Harvard University, states that those paying taxes for buying, running and maintaining vehicles deserve to be compensated with better services, by deploying the funds raised through diverse charges.  

However, the other lobby is quite skeptical, and believes that car owners should don the mantle for improving roads: they are the ones, despite being in minority, are the primary cause of traffic snarls and jams, and above all air pollution,that precipitates troubles for majority road users traversing using communal means; hence,  they should be made to shoulder this expense. Also, such levies could discourage irresponsible car usage, and surmount problems caused by them. 

In hindsight, I vehemently opine that even though both the views hold substance, it is prudent that politicians to  undertake the task of maintaining and expanding the road network. 

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?  

The debate surrounding conducting clinical trials on animals is the most heated in the healthcare and cosmetics sectors. While this practice is deemed as acceptable, some raise concerns, which though can be overlooked in the favor of public good at large. 

Discovery of numerous vaccines, medicines, surgical procedures, and so on, requires a trial on living beings in order to determine their impact on physiological functions, and outcomes, so it is justified to experiment on animals, as without this, medicines, procedure, or even cosmetics cannot be deemed fit for human consumption. Several ailments inflicting kidney, brain and heart, and terminal illnesses: cancer, facing humans have been treated using remedies and procedures perfected through this arrangement, saving  billions of lives that  would have been lost to preventable disease.

Moreover, there is little room for objections regarding these settings; the fauna used to carry out research is not exotic, or nearing extinction, but those such as monkeys and rodents that are considered to be a menace, and culled in millions by farmers, animal control boards and other agencies  through either poisoning or being shot. 

As far as  exploring alternatives is concerned, there are few alternatives, except using cloned human tissue to evaluate the effectiveness of  medical intervention on humans, which is yet to prove its credentials by virtue of being in its rudimentary stage, and needs more research to realise its potential. However, till then the  invaluable human life cannot be left at its own device to fend for itself against ailments and diseases. 

Overall, objections raised by the critics of animal testing fail to hold  ground in the face of the need to provide effective safeguards against illnesses, infections and disabilities, and medical conditions. This must continue until a potent alternative to this system is discovered. 

Although it is generally illegal, physical punishment continues in many countries. Some argue that parents should have the right to punish their children in this way. Do you agree or disagree?

Although it is generally illegal, physical punishment continues in many countries. Some argue that parents should have the right to punish their children in this way. Do you agree or disagree?

In contemporary times, physical punishment has become a highly debatable topic. Some people have propounded that parents have the liberty to punish their children for mistakes, while some disagree upon this notion. This makes it imperative to analyse both the notions to draw a justified conclusion.

To commence, some believe that parents enjoy the privilege to resort to this age-old practice. They suggest that parents are held liable for any mistakes committed by their progeny, making it obligatory for them to guide the latter, giving them the right to use their prerogative. For instance, any minor crime undertaken by juveniles makes families legally responsible for any resulting consequences, and thus, they must have their way. 

Furthermore, any oral explanations or counseling is likely to fail to have an impact on immature minds because they are incapable of differentiating between right and wrong, making it imperative to punish them. In addition, these punishments prohibit children from following the wrong direction, and compels them to behave in a desired manner. 

However, frequently castigating young ones using violent methods creates a negative perspective in their minds, and the respect for their parents may diminish. Furthermore, this creates a lifelong trauma for them. For instance, many children across the world fall into mental trauma owing to their childhood instances. In addition, being subjected to violence may make them believe that such behaviour is normal, making them aggressive, and induce them to replicate it with their peers, friends and later their own progeny. 

In conclusion, disputes aside, it is crucial for parents to prevent their offspring from going astray, but such an approach should be embraced in extreme cases. It should also be ensured that these actions do not scar the mental well being of tender minds permanently.   

 

Many cities are replacing cars with bicycles. What are the reasons for this? Which do you think is better?

Many cities are replacing cars with bicycles. What are the reasons for this? Which do you think is better?

A profound shift in the attitude of the metropolis at prioritizing cycles over cars, majorly driven by environmental concerns and the need to improve living conditions, has been witnessed. This essay shall delve deeper  

This transformation in the approach of urban planners is driven by the fact that cycling boasts of benefits cars cannot offer: this activity does not release large amounts of carbon dioxide and other harmful pollutants: the major  contributors to deteriorating air quality and global climate change, and instead help halt emissions. Consequently, through this alteration, municipalities have been able to  reduce pollution levels and create a sustainable environment. Furthermore, fewer cars on the roads can decrease noise pollution, making cities quieter, and more pleasant places to live.

Additionally, this has made management of traffic and public health. Several metropolitan regions struggle with severe congestion due to the increasing number of private vehicles. Bicycles occupy far less space and can move efficiently through crowded streets, which helps alleviate chaos. In addition, pedalling is a great way to improve cardiovascular health and reduce lifestyle-related diseases such as obesity and diabetes, which is assisting urban authorities in keeping the health bills down.

However,  some propose automobiles provide greater convenience, especially for long-distance travel, or commuting during adverse weather conditions. For families, elderly individuals, or people living far from their workplaces, relying solely on bicycles may not be practical. In addition, many cities lack the necessary infrastructure, such as safe cycling lanes and parking facilities, which makes widespread bicycle use challenging.

Overall, while automotives serve specific roles, bicycles represent a more suitable and efficient choice for city authorities - proving an efficient form of commuting for everyday urban use. Thus, the growing preference is justified in light of incrementing ecological and health challenges.  

Many people believe that reducing speed limit is the best option for road safety improvement. Do you think there are other measures that could be put in place? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?

Many people believe that reducing speed limit is the best option for road safety improvement. Do you think there are other measures that could be put in place? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?

It is commonly suggested the number of road mishaps can be mitigated by implementing speed thresholds. Although this policy carries numerous benefits, it is hard to overlook the drawbacks associated with it, making it imperative to blend it with other tools to ensure better outcomes. 

This  arrangement affords a major favourable aspect: giving drivers enough time and space to monitor the conditions of traffic and road ahead, and respond accordingly. Most accidents occurring are a result of speeding vehicles crashing into slow moving, or stationary cars, buses, and so forth; or potholes. Thus, if one has enough time to observe the circumstances, they can take evasive actions. To corroborate, countries like Australia, Great Britain and France, to name a few, have successfully used this law to curb mishaps and slash fatalities by seventy percent.

Nevertheless, this approach can stretch travelling times, and cause traffic snarls, especially during the rush hours, and precipitate higher stress levels among motorists, making them irritable. To exemplify, cities like Manila and Delhi, among others, witness umpteen road rage cases every year, and these are primarily attributed to slow statutory speeds. 

Several experts propose that to counter detrimental effects of forcing a ceiling on how fast one can drive, a stringent licensing policy should be enacted to help ensure that those intending to sit behind the wheel are trained appropriately, and have the correct temperament to handle driving. Moreover, zero tolerance should be exercised against infringements, and repeated offenders should be permanently barred from sitting in the seat of drivers. 

In conclusion, despite having certain shortcomings, curtailing the speed of traffic is the most credible method of making roads safer for users and commuters. This strategy can be made more effective by deploying other schemes to derive and enduring outcomes.

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

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

Crime remains a persistent issue across the globe, and there is an ongoing debate about whether mechanisms embraced to quell unlawful endeavors can help: while some believe that these make little difference, others exhibit optimism. This essay shall delve deeper into both perspectives and draw a plausible conclusion.

Those critical of policies deployed to curtail incidence of antisocial acts argue that deviant behaviour is deeply rooted in human nature and social inequalities, and claim that factors: poverty, unemployment, and lack of education push individuals to commit infringements, and these issues cannot be solved easily through preventive measures alone. To corroborate, a survey related to the background of prisoners reveals that 70 percent of convicts were uneducated, socially and financially not well off, and were earlier involved in multiple petty crimes, and were likely to re-engage in their deviant ways after serving their terms.  

Moreover, some unlawful elements may continue their activities regardless of strict laws or security systems, by virtue of fostering a penchant for deviant ways since these bought them easy money and notoriety. For example, even in countries with advanced policing and surveillance, many are unlikely to relinquish their unlawful ways of life. 

However, advocates of this policy strongly believe that preventative methods  play a significant role in reforming criminal behaviour through rehabilitation, asserting that well-implemented measures such as increased police visibility, advanced security systems, and community-based initiatives can act as solid deterrents. In addition, social interventions like skill development, employment opportunities, and so forth, can tackle the underlying causes of crime, helping mitigate antisocial undertakings.

In conclusion, although some doubt the efficacy of crime prevention, it is a vital tool in maintaining public safety. When supported by broader socio-economic reforms, preventive strategies can significantly contribute to a safer and more stable society.